This chapter takes you on a whirlwind tour, like an executive summary, through the reasons behind the various mistakes, lies and fallacies. Follow the links to detailed chapters on this website.

• too simple a belief, public perception
• The no-take marine reserve idea is so simple that it has taken hold in the minds of many. It needs very little education. To displace it with a more complex and truthful idea, is difficult and takes time.
• The marine reserve is too narrow a concept for conserving (saving) the sea. We must look at all issues from human population to our needs and how to do things better. Education and self responsibility are also potent conservation tools. Read conservation principles and resource management on this web site.
• Marine reserves (conservation) work where all manmade threats are removed. These places are no longer found along the coast of the main islands, but they do exist around remote islands. Few people know this.
• People do not understand the huge differences between land and sea. Even marine scientists are often insufficiently aware. Biodiversity/sea-land. Marine habitats intro.
• People working with the sea understand the sea better than landlubbers. They are concerned. They must become the sea's guardians. They too need to learn more, but we can also learn from them.
• The Government is confused. Fisheries must exploit the sea to the max to balance the Current Account deficit. The Minister for the Environment doesn't care about the sea. DoC makes marine reserves for research now, but for biodiversity later (the new marine reserves bill has floundered). Protagonists want reserves to save fisheries. Others for an insurance. These conflicts must be resolved in the pending Oceans Policy which may end as just a discussion forum. (indeed it has fizzled out)
• Very few scientists appear to be able to see the huge damage from degradation happening everywhere and how fast this problem is accelerating. They refuse to accept the facts and have no data to either confirm or deny.
• Protagonists take the moral high ground, which is hard to oppose. It takes much courage to do so. Dr Robert Shipp's article. (The tyranny of the moral high ground)
• Much propaganda and disinformation has been spread to promote marine reserves, even to our children at school. How can it be undone? Read Frequently Asked Questions on this web site.
• Protagonists have spread fear about the state of the oceans, its fisheries and its future in order to gain political advantage. However, such fear of fishing is unwarranted because compared to the land, the sea is still in a relatively good state. Not knowing what to do, concerned landlubbers are seeking political action on fishing rather than on landbased pollution.
• what is wrong at the top
• 'The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations [as part of human rights] has established an institutional obligation to citizens:
  (i) to create an expectation is an empty gesture without a promise to fulfill it. Before creating an expectation, an organization must assure itself of its ability to fulfill the promise it implies, and that
  (ii) if a government holds itself out to do something, even if not legally required to do so, it will be expected to act carefully and appropriately without negligence, and the citizens have the legitimate expectation that the government will discharge its obligations.'
  (J. Russow, World Bank Environmental Communication study 2003) Why does it not apply to our government institutions?
• fraudulent concealment [as part of contract law]
  The deliberate attempt to withhold information or to conceal an act to avoid contractual responsibility. Intentional suppression or withholding of, or neglect to communicate, a material fact. Fraudulent failure to reveal information which someone knows and is aware that in good faith he/she should communicate to another.
  Fraudulent concealment may provide grounds for setting aside (rescinding) of a contract and for a claim of damages. A concealment which is only the effect of accident, negligence, inadvertence or mistake, if material, is equally fatal to the contract as if it were intentional and fraudulent. Regulations obtained through fraudulent concealment can be rescinded in court.
• The NZ Biodiversity Strategy (Marine) is flawed. It ignores the threats from the land completely. It assumes (without proof) that fully protected marine reserves provide the only solution to conserve biodiversity. This is false. FAQ.
• In nature unexploited populations do not exist. Biodiversity is not directly threatened by additional exploitation. Biodiversity is about sustainable populations of all species. 99% of all species are not threatened by fishing. Biodiversity is highest where food is scarce, thus fishing uneconomic.
• Ten percent of the sea follows from 15-30% of land protection. This is false. FAQ. Others state that this is only the beginning, and that 20-30% is needed to save fisheries from collapsing, which is also false. One cannot compare land with sea.
• Ten percent implemented by 2010 is a mistake. There is no hurry. Education must also take place. Why cast our mistakes in concrete? We have so many marine reserves that have failed. Why have more failed reserves?
• DoC and Government have been advised by protagonists who do not even dive. Armchair conservationists are misinformed about the sea. Most marine reserve protagonists have no practical experience with the sea.
• It is wrong to harm others without compensation because of strong but false beliefs.
• The Marine Reserves Act was a costly mistake, and so was the Marine Mammals Conservation Act, because the Fisheries Act contains all the mechanisms necessary for marine conservation of areas, habitats and species. FAQ.
• Worldwide the trend goes in the direction of Marine Protected Areas of all kind with marine reserves here and there. But even for this, our Marine Reserves Act does not have enough flexibility. It is obsolete and should be abolished.
• Authorities falsely believe that land and sea should be managed in one hand because of a mysterious connection between the two. However, whereas the sea has hardly any effect on the land, the influence of land erosion on the sea is profound and it can arrive from areas far away from the sea. See Westcoast reserve proposal.
• Those advising our Government believe we are in a race and that we should somehow lead the world in the number of marine reserves. This is a very bad reason for having more failed marine reserves. Instead of leading the world in mitigating land based pollution, we are leading it in soil erosion.
• Since the Department of Conservation and local and regional government are bound to execute directives from Government laid down in law, marine reserves are now pushed hard by a well-funded bureaucracy, even in the face of overwhelming well-informed public opposition. It has become a senseless war.
• The public is continually being harrassed by an army of bureaucrats who are keen to legislate the people's rights away - without compensation. What will the world eventually look like? Obviously, this tendency must be halted. No-take areas, quotas, concessions, proof of guilt. It is now said that fishing is a privilege rather than a right. Is owning land a privilege? What about our rights as laid down in Common Law?
• entering a world of scarcity
• The main cause behind all our problems is overpopulation while nature shrinks. Regulation aims at dividing the cake while keeping some. The number of new regulations each year is accelerating, while most are ineffectual. Their cost is not considered, and neither are compliance costs.
• An army of people in Wellington is busy regulating our freedoms away and this gets worse.
• The environment may become the biggest issue in coming years, absorbing large amounts of money, time and other resources. It may become unaffordable.
• We must now look for solutions that deliver most bang for the buck. We can't afford feel-good solutions that do not deliver. Many laws and reguations must be abolished accordingly. We owe it to our children.
• the cost not considered
• The cost (in New Zealand) could amount to $100 million per annum in lost exports; 1000 families on the dole. 50,000 fishermen displaced, having to fish elsewhere. Sustenance fishermen are badly affected. If 20% is set aside, these costs will double.
• There is no compensation. One group in society can take from another with neither redress nor accountability.
• The cost/benefit has not been weighed against other solutions. It is not included in plans and proposals.
• the benefits negligible
• Most of the benefits of marine reserves just sprouted from ideas of protagonists. They are not real. Marine conservation.
• Spill-over because the protected area contains more fish is negligible. FAQ. Myths7.
• Reserves are thought to produce more larvae but this has not been proved. Neither has it been proved that more recruits arise. The situation is more complicated due to the vagaries of plankton ecosystems, which are seriously threatened by land based pollution. FAQ. Dr Robert Shipp. Fish reproduce mainly to make food rather than offspring!
• People espousing the thistle-down effect are not aware that marine organisms spawn more than 99.99% to make food in the plankton food chain, but less than 0.01% to reproduce. This planktonic environment is largely unknown and actual recruitment is not related to the amount of spawn (Dr Shipp). Scientists use computer models which suffer from false assumptions. FAQ.
• The most important benefits are those to human visitors, scientists and a protected area's age structure (old fish). Marine conservation. Only places with clear water and good access can provide economic benefits.
• Marine reserves do not fix the causes of our problems. They do not prevent overfishing. They work for small areas only. There are better ways.
• ad hoc proposals rather than a fully integrated approach
• Marine reserves can be proposed by any group in any place. As a result, the whole process has become an ad hoc (particular, piecemeal) affair. There exists no strategic or integrated approach. On the one hand conservationists talk about marine reserve networks, while on the other hand they hope to achieve this by hit and miss proposals.
• The question is not just where to put marine reserves, but what to do to save the sea. A completely integrated approach looks at all  threats and identifies the most suitable conservational tools. Existing de-facto marine reserves should be high on the list as should be existing restrictions on fisheries.
• The public wants to see an overall plan accompanied by good consultation and discussion, rather than piecemeal confrontations up and down the country.
• The public wants to have solid evidence that an integrated plan will work. The failure to evaluate whether present marine reserves work, does not inspire confidence in the process. DoC appears to be withholding and distorting important evidence.
• The public has no confidence in plans that do not identify the nature and extent of threats to the sea, which includes those from landbased pollution. They should be part of the area identification process.
• A fully integrated approach includes the public and their representative associations right from the very beginning.
• A fully integrated approach should begin by addressing the points of concern raised on this page. It should start by ironing out the myths and fallacies that have arisen over time. There should be complete agreement on the starting points, the very reasons for having marine parks and marine reserves.
• True consultation requies true honesty. Too often the process is hiding hidden agendas.
• marine reserves in the wrong hands
• 10% of the sea ends up in the hands of the wrong people, managed by the wrong people who have no affiliation with the sea or understanding of it. FAQ.
• International literature recommends local management but DoC won't relinquish control and the budget. Resource management, FAQ, Marine Reserves Bill 2002.
• Even for managing land reserves, DOC has been severely criticised for their lack of flexibility and understanding. They should now become active in land preservation to save the sea. So should Forest & Bird. Why are they waiting?
• Marine Reserves Act a dead end. (see MRA71, MRA96)
• It is a very specialised legislation, of which no other nation has anything similar. As the world is moving towards a unified system of reserves, based on the IUCN recommendations, the MRA will always be the odd one out, and so will be New Zealand. Internationally the movement is towards MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) of various protection categories where human activity is managed and within these, pockets of marine reserves forming networks, managed locally.
• the MRA is a bludgeon, an unintelligent sledge hammer which hopes to save the sea by closing large areas here and there, without addressing the causes of the main threats to the sea. It does nothing for the areas outside marine reserves.
• marine reserves will thus not fit in at all with other means of marine conservation like fisheries restrictions, bag limits, taiapure, mataitai (locally managed harvesting) and temporary closures (rahui).
• The MRA has always been entirely superfluous since the Fisheries Act provides for a graduated scale of conservation measures, from the Quota Management System to permanently closed areas. It applies to ecosystems, habitats and individual species.
• The MRA specifically precludes local management, as is borne out by all marine reserves created so far. This flies in the face of international research which attributes the success of marine reserves to local management by local (fishing) communities. We must move towards local management.
• Marine reserves are managed by the wrong people who have little knowledge and experience with the sea. Because they have no presence there, they cannot provide for effective policing, while their policies and actions are often irrational while based on ideology.
• The MRA was never intended for what it is used for today. It intended to provide scientists with protection over their marine research, but like a cancer it is growing uncontrolledly beyond what is viable or practical.
• The MRA does not address matters of ecology: sustainability, resilience and adaptability. It is concerned mainly with enforcement and punishment, and in doing so, duplicates large parts of other acts. It is a costly duplication aimed at giving a large bureaucracy of ideologists uncontrollable powers.
• The MRA does not have sufficient flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances as dictated by a changing environment and society.
• Since coastal marine reserves no longer work, fisheries regulations will be the ones that work best. They address the causes of the problems. They work for all areas, not just 10%. Where no-take reserves are needed they can be combined with managed and lightly fished boundaries. Sustenance fishing by locals must be looked after.
• poor timing
• There exists no compelling evidence for haste. The fishing situation has not been getting worse rapidly. Instead, the Quota Management System is showing signs of stocks at sustainable levels (with exceptions). The 10% by 2010 mandate is hopelessly wrong.
• The existing marine reserves have not been evaluated for their effectiveness for biodiversity (sustainability for all species). Instead research has focused on a few commercial species, measured with a flawed method (baited camera) FAQ. Otherwise DoC would have been aware that at least 2 out of 3 are not working (reserves summary).
• The very large areas (3000km2) of de-facto marine reserves in ammunition dumps and cable ways have not been studied for their effectiveness as no-take marine reserves (of which there is only 150km2 around mainland NZ).
• Instead of making priority with these de-facto reserves in their marine reserves proposals, DoC is proposing new and contentious areas.
• poor management
• Most of the existing reserves are inadequately marked and policed [1]. They do not reach their potential. Why have more like these? Get this right first.
• Where compliance problems are encountered, this can be traced back to poor consultation and not listening to valid objections [1]. Local people have a wealth of knowledge to contribute.
• Poor consultation is evident now in EVERY marine reserve proposed since 2002. Read the marine reserve proposals indexed above. See fraudulent concealment above.
• Although the whole world recommends local management as a prerequisite for success and compliance, DoC has explicitly ruled this out in the new proposed Bill. It will not hand over the management budget either. This must be resolved first.
• The sudden and rapid creation of new marine reserves exhausts the resources of the public. It highlights the unfair difference in funding between the aggressor (DoC) and the victim (the fishing public). This is a poorly managed aspect of a so-called democratic consultative process.
• the new threats
• Mud from erosion and sewage from animal husbandry and people cause the new threats in the sea. Erosion.
• Mud and sewage release nutrients in the sea. The nutrients fertilise the plankton which blooms excessively, causing many problems. Erosion/sea. See diagram.
• In moderation (natural amounts) this is beneficial for fisheries but when overnourished, problems occur. Read the Plankton Balance Hypothesis.
• Mud suffocates when it settles on sensitive organisms, in calm places first. See diagram1, diagram2.
• Combined with diatom strings and bacteria, mud can become very sticky, suffocating organisms even in more exposed places that are cleaned regularly by wave wash. In 1983 a dense plankton bloom of an otherwise harmless diatom species (Cerataulina pelagica) caused massive kill of water-breathing species from scallop to fish [2].
• Poisonous cyanobacteria can be part of the 'sticky slime' (mostly Ostreopsis spp.), killing grazers like snails and sea urchins.
• New research has shown that decomposing bacteria in the sea are the main culprits of degradation. Increased nutrient levels also increase their numbers. These bacteria attack zooplankton and fish larvae, causing symptoms of overfishing due to recruitment failure. Read about DDA.
• Dense plankton blooms take the light away from kelp forests, which can die over large areas. Survey93.
• Dense plankton blooms can become highly toxic, threatening the entire food chain including people.
• Plankton toxins are highly poisonous, able to kill almost any animal and even plants.
• Shellfish fisheries have been closed in 1993-1996, and 2003 due to such toxins. They are being monitored. See timeline.
• Major fish mortalities have occurred, playing havoc with fisheries management models. Of many fish stocks the models now correct for 'unaccounted losses' amounting to several years of fishing effort (MFish). NoFish93. ). Fishermen are blamed for wasteful activities (high-grading, deeming, etc.) to explain such losses.
• The seas above our continental shelves appear to be accumulating nutrients and toxins, rather than being cleansed by currents.
• Before 1983 these problems were not noticeable. They have become threatening now. Article.
• New Zealand soils are very deep and sensitive to erosion. Soil NZ.
• Raindrop impact damage on bare soil is our worst enemy, which depends critically on raindrop size. Diagram.
• Torrential downpours have become common, causing unconceivably high raindrop damage. Only this causes most of the soil erosion.
• Our rate of erosion is 5-30 times what is natural, depending on soil type and slope. 300-400 million tonnes /year; 7 tonnes per person per year.
• We are losing our precious soils as we are killing the sea and losing our beaches. They belong to our children. A triple stupidity.
• Our economy and welfare depends on the conversion of sunlight to exports, both on land and in the sea. It is stupid to kill the hand that feeds us. SoilNZ.SpecialNZ.
• In 1986 the subsidy on fertiliser was abolished. Hill country with most of our problem soils was no longer fertilised. Soil degraded and is now washing into the sea at an ever increasing rate. Map.
• The number of earth digging and shifting machines is increasing rapidly. They are not left idle.
• The situation is getting worse decade by decade.
• good and bad years and the trend
• There is a ten-year cycle, co-incident with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). The very large South Pacific Gyre comes to a standstill, causing hot oceans and coral bleaching in the west Pacific while the sardine fishery collapses in the east Pacific.
• In the bad years (El Niño) the warm water currents from the north weaken. The seas around NZ become cold (-2º to -3 ºC) and dirty. Nutrients accumulate over the continental shelves. Plankton blooms more violently. These have become problem years for NZ. Graph.
• What used to be three in thirty years has become four bad years in ten. 1981-84, 1991-96, 2001-2006??.
• Shellfish closures, shellfish diseases, fish mortalities, fish diseases, recruitment failure, habitat collapses are all caused by this.
• In the good (La Niña) years the waters are warm and clear (relatively). Foreign species catch a ride to NZ on strong ocean currents. Snappers spawn ten times more successfully. Habitats recover somewhat.
• The problems started since the early 1980s. In 1986 the subsidy on fertiliser was abolished.
• The trend is worsening. My estimate is 50-150% worse every ten years (Floor Anthoni).
• scientists have failed society: in this era of fast changing circumstances, scientists have failed society in too many ways, to such extent that science has now obtained a bad reputation in the public's perception: one can no longer trust what scientists say!
• Too many scientists have abandoned their scientific objectivity in favour of their firmly held beliefs, and have been active in misleading propaganda, scare tactics and hysteria: global warming, acid oceans, ozone holes, nuclear energy, marine reserves, anti-whaling, anti-fishing and so on. Too many scientists are found in the lunatic fringes of green movements. Those who are not, have not actively exposed their colleagues.
• Marine scientists failed to identify the myths and fallacies in the marine reserves hysteria, its misleading propaganda and false perceived benefits. They let false claims propagate without objection.
• Marine scientists failed to research the foremost problem in the sea, that of degradation, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. They failed to engage in a scientific manner with recent epoch-making discoveries by Dr Anthoni. See the DDA method and its discoveries.
• Scientists have failed to identify the flaws in scientific research, particularly relating to ecology and marine protection. There is inadequate scientific discourse and too much consensus. See scientists need skeptics.
• Scientists have failed to criticise government departments for their politically driven funding. Instead they have pleased the hand that feeds.
• Scientists have failed to fight for free public access to their scientific journal publications and have not provided alternative means to do so. As a result, the public is poorly informed and does not obtain the results from the research it paid for.
• flawed scientific research
• The sea is unbelievably and unintuitively different from the land. If you don't know this, you will be uninformed. See biodiversity/marine and habitat intro. Even many (marine) scientists are insufficiently aware, as Universities pay too little attention to this..
• The sea is hostile and difficult of access. Waves and weather are always in control. We can be underwater only for one to a few hours each day. Compare this with tramping the forests, and it is clear that we have very little opportunity to become marine naturalists. In the warm clear tropical seas this gets better. Remember how much knowledge was gathered by ecologists who were also keen naturalists?
• As a result, the marine ecology is largely unknown. The plankton ecosystems are also largely unknown.
• With their limited general knowledge, scientists do 'controlled' ecological experiments, hatched behind their computer screens,  from which they derive far-reaching conclusions, which often lead to nonsense.
• Marine scientists do not have their own boats and are not free to dive any place any time. They must account for every hour to some budget. They have hardly enough time in the water to collect their own data. As a result, very few experienced marine naturalists are found among marine scientists.
• Marine naturalists must be confident in diving, which takes the best of ten years experience. They must learn to see, remember and understand the functions of myriad sea creatures. After about 20 years one can begin to see how it all works together and how it degrades as species disappear. One also learns to see what is 'normal' and what has changed.
• Marine research done in the lab is of high quality. But studying the ecology cannot be done there. Controlled experiments are seldom possible. The scientific method as defined by Francis Bacon fails there. Read Science, technology & human nature. A different approach is needed but not done (yet). FAQ.
• Scientists cannot react to sudden events, changing the course of their studies. First a budget is needed, and someone must be found to pay for it. Time must be accounted for and use of boats. As a result, many significant events have not been studied. Degradation has not been observed.
• Studying degradation is not 'sexy'. It does not earn scientific admiration. Before and after studies cannot be done.
• Successes are published, failures not. Scientists never or seldom say "we were wrong".
• Scientists have omitted monitoring the sea for its clarity and sedimentation rate. A network of simple sedimentation traps on all wharves and some buoys could have kept us uptodate with the disastrous trends that have been with us for over fifty years, but which are accelerating steeply now. This has not been done. It is not even being considered.
• Snap-shot science: The duration of a scientific study appears to be correlated with the time it takes to do an MSc or PhD. Instead of following a thread of ideas and experiments to discover how the sea works, scientists now do one-year snapshots to prove (rather than to disprove) an idea. Such scattered observations do not join up ecologically, resulting in wrong conclusions. Uncertain funding exacerbates this. Snap-shot science has remained oblivious to the damage caused by coastal degradation.
• Many marine scientists are politically motivated, having traded objectivity for their beliefs. Science funded by DoC is bound to give results pleasing government, much as that funded by the tobacco industry pleases its funders. One does not easily bite the hand that feeds. The government funded research cannot be critical of government.
• Many scientists now earn their living from marine reserves. It has become a major source of income for many institutions. They will not admit the futility of their endeavours.
• A swarm of politically motivated marine 'scientists' is now involved with marine reserves, quoted as a 'growth industry'. They want marine reserves to work for the environment, science, fisheries management, baselines, biodiversity and much more but they fail to see when and why these reserves don't work. Most of these scientists work with computers and models to make their point. A similar situation has occurred with the science favouring global warming (IPCC).
• These 'scientists' do not take the precaution of distinguishing apples and pears, and uncritically apply findings about tropical reefs to the situation in temperate waters. Even here they do not distinguish the special nature of some spots on the coast. The area around Goat Island for instance, has always been a special place without equivalent. To compare other places with it must be done with care. Yet these 'scientists' do not exercise such care. FAQ.
• Nearly all travelling protagonists for marine reserves are not frequent divers, having no personal appreciation of the marine environment. They are not marine naturalists. Yet their influence has swayed many and has been decisive for this Government's flawed policies.
• Failure of marine reserves is almost never published. Yet about two thirds of 1306 surveyed MPAs failed to meet their objectives (Kelleher et al. 1995). Most if not all New Zealand's coastal marine reserves fail to protect biodiversity as they degrade further from bad to worse.
• flawed marine education at school
• Rather than teaching our children to think critically, they are fed a stream of propaganda by government about marine reserves and fisheries, by the forest industry about forestry.
• The flawed urchin barrens hypothesis, lacking any proof, is now taught at schools and university and is uncritically quoted in an ever growing number of scientific papers. How much worse can it get? Children are taught that feeding the fishes is bad, without balancing viewpoints.
• bad news is bad
• The Government spends many millions of dollars each year to promote a clean and green NZ image. To say that we are in reality far removed from that ideal, could cost the nation dearly in lost revenue from tourism. Yet an ecological disaster of unequalled magnitude is looming over NZ.
• Eco tourism, glassbottom boats, whale watchers, dive charters and so on, are all dependent on the tourist dollar. They spread counteracting propaganda and step up their marketing and advertising. So how is the public to know the bad news?
• For the Department Of Conservation (DOC) the message that coastal marine reserves are no longer working is akin to death. They will not do what is right for us but what is right for themselves.
• Marine reserve protagonists who have clamoured for their cause for large parts of their lives are not going to say 'we were wrong'. Instead they are stepping up their flawed efforts with more fervour.
• The media do not like to press minority or dissenting views, particularly when the news is bad. They are more concerned about sales, for which our departments and institutions are important. They are also controlled by powerful financial interests.
• Most if not all media are now controlled by financial interests who have their own agendas and do not like to rock the boat.
• what next?
• Half the solution rests in recognising that there is a problem. Let's admit it. Let's say we were wrong. If that does not happen, a solution will not be forthcoming. It is necessarily the first step.
• The marine reserves process
• We must stop the marine reserves process before more mistakes are cast in concrete. There is no justifiable haste for marine reserves.
• We must not ask ourselves just where to put marine reserves or how many but we must look at all issues because every issue that helps is therefore also a conservation issue, and this includes population policy, education and self-responsibility.
• Then we must start at the top, removing all conflicts from an overarching Oceans Policy. MFish must be given the goal not to only catch more fish but to also act with more caution (is in the pipeline now). They should be made responsible for all marine conservation and reserves. New Zealanders should have first right to their country's fisheries.
• The myths and fallacies in traditional fisheries management must be exposed and abandoned. See inconvenient questions for the Minister of Fisheries.
• Most immediate benefit comes from keeping more fish in the sea, with more refined fisheries management with more local input and management.
• Eventually the MRA and the Marine Mammals Protection Act must be abolished and acted upon from the Fisheries Act. DoC must be released from their responsibility over the sea.
• Overnourishment (eutrophication)
• Soil erosion + loss of fertility + sewage cause overnourishment of coastal seas. It must be reduced from all of its causes. This is our main battle.
• Sewage must be collected into coastal tankers and released far out to sea where nutrients are needed.  This creates a new fishery far out in sea, while at the same time saving the existing coastal fisheries over the continental shelf. It is a double win.
• Eventually we should be able to recycle it.
• Farming methods must change to farm soil rather than sheep/stock/milk. We must not graze the grass too short. We must not overstock.
• There should be less pressure on farming more from less land, which leads to overfertilisation, overstocking and loss of fertiliser/ fertility to the sea.
• There should be incentives to farm marginal and isolated lands more productively and more environmentally friendly.
• There should be incentives to sustain healthy rural communitites.
• Erosion and loss of soil fertility
• Solutions won't have an overnight effect. We must above all learn to farm soil sustainably. Soil is our most precious resource, belonging to future generations and we all bear the responsibility to keep it in good health for future generations.
• A farm advisory service must be established which is able to give FREE advice to farmers and land owners, and educate them about maintaining soil fertility, minimising erosion and how to get state help. It must also be able to take soil samples and maintain a national soil database.
• As a temporary measure, the subsidy on fertiliser should be reintroduced for problem soils and hill country. (not for dairy farming) It is not about productivity but about soil cover. Some islands may need to be top-dressed in their entirety (Geat Barrier Island, Ruapuke I, Stewart I).
• A financial incentive must pay farmers to let degrading lands lie fallow (unused) and revert to bush.
• A financial incentive must stimulate the planting of trees and the fencing of sensitive areas.
• There must be incentives to remove noxious animals and plants from our environment.
• The Government must buy back unproductive and degraded lands and reforest these or allow them to go fallow.
• Coastal erosion
• Financial incentives should see all of our coasts, mangroves and wetlands fenced and possums removed.
• Many of our coasts need to be reseeded and fertilised to prevent imminent and already ongoing erosion.
• Research
• The direction of current research must be changed. We must start measuring degradation and aim our minds at how to mitigate the new threats. We must direct research to our largest problems first. We must also provide for ongoing research (not snap-shot research) necessary for understanding marine ecosystems.

Just go over the above list again and ask yourself how it is possible that so much went wrong in the marine reserves debate. The obvious thing to do is to halt the whole process so that all fallacies can be ironed out and the right things done for the right reasons. We owe it to our children.

References used above and available for loan from the Seafriends library:
[1] Social impacts of marine reserves in New Zealand. Nick Taylor and Brigid Buckenham. Science for Conservation 217. Dept of Cons. 2003.
[2] A bloom of the planktonic diatom, Cerataulina pelagica off the coast of northeastern New Zealand in 1983, and its contribution to an associated mortality of fish and benthic fauna. Taylor F J, Taylor N J, Walsby J R (1985). Int Revue ges Hydrobiol 70:6:773-795