Unfortunately, this area is no longer able to replenish itself since it is degrading rapidly. Yet this was not caused by fishing. It makes no longer sense to have a marine reserve here because the main problem of our coastal seas, which is also manifest here, is the devastating influence of land-based pollution. What is needed are measures to increase the fish stocks throughout the Hauraki Gulf, and around Great Barrier.

This is a marine reserve proposal with history.  As part of the consultation process during the lead up to the 1994 marine reserve application, a steering committee was formed at a public meeting held at the Claris Sports Club. This committee was chaired by John Graham and was made up of a cross section of the community, including representatives from the South, Central and North Barrier communities, professional and recreational fishermen, non-fishermen, at least one DoC worker. This group eventually recommended that there was local support for a small marine reserve as shown with the red solid lines on the map, corresponding to the 1991 proposal. There was no support for any reserve larger than that.

Time and again, DOC quotes strong support, whereas this was not so. For instance, at the Great Barrier Community Board meeting of 31 May 2003 the proposal was voted down almost unanimously but this was reported by DOC as: the vote at the meeting that was held on GBI at the weekend was for the proposal as it currently stands. Indeed the vote was about the current proposal. It is sad that we can no longer trust our Government which is employing war techniques of propaganda, disinformation and division.
Note the precise wording in the questionnaire: Do you support the principle of a marine reserve somewhere on the north-east coast of Great Barrier Island? Yes/No. What are people supposed to answer when they are against the present proposal but not against a small reserve somewhere else? The first and foremost question should have been: Do you support this proposal? Yes/No.

Having had overwhelming adverse reaction from the public, fishing industry, tangata whenua and community, DOC could not come back with the same proposal. But it is true that larger marine reserves are more effective at protecting more species and habitats. However, marine reserves do not protect against land-based pollution and poisonous plankton blooms. The entire proposed area has been devastated by this. In 1993 the whole kelp forest disappeared, as did most sponges and other sessile filterfeeders and schooling fish. Recently in 2002 this happened again, but more devastating for sponges than for kelp. Many fish species also disappeared. Read Seafriends' study of this phenomenon www.seafriends.org.nz/enviro/habitat/survey93.htm.

DOC produced a movie from which the image on the right was taken. The best scenes of the deep water survey by remotely controlled camera were shown in this movie. Yet these could not hide the overwhelming amount of mud covering the sea bottom, smothering organisms. The organisms showed known signs of stress such as the absence of juveniles. The large organisms in this movie have a story to tell, about how good conditions once were but no longer are. This whole area will deteriorate further with time, even when completely protected. On this image one can see a dead black coral tree in the background, covered by hardy purple jewel anemones. The base of this tree shows that it was once a large one.

Black coral colonies, sponges and a wealth of invertebrate life on a deep reef north of Rakitu.

One cannot compare marine reserves with national parks. Our national parks are tracts of land which cannot be lived on or harvested because they are unproductive. On the other hand, the sea is entirely productive everywhere and can be accessed with ease. The national parks are not threatened by muddy sediment but the sea is.

Not true. The underwater environment is the least altered environment of all. Its kelp forests have not been burnt for agriculture; nobody is living there; the seabottom has not been paved with roads; there are no invasive species like cats, rats, stoats, goats, deer, rabbits, possums. By far most of the marine life will not improve inside a marine reserve but some fished species will to some extent.

Speculation. Locals have worked hard to protect their coasts with better means than marine reserves. In 1992 they achieved a 1 mile commercial set net ban  right around the Great Barrier and the Mokohinau Islands, with spectacular results. Where was DoC when they needed them? A marine reserve will do nothing to the areas outside and it will not address the causes of our problems.
Imagine how our fisheries could look if the option4 Principle #3 of a Planning Right was enforced. It would empower the public to leave fish in the water, secure in the knowledge that those fish would not simply be reallocated to the fishing industry driven by insatiable export markets.

f036801: The kelp forest is open, letting sunlight through to the rocky bottom. Barren patches show where large sponges once stood. There is little kelp recruitment. The older kelp is mainly of one age group, an indication of stress.

f036804: A little deeper, particularly where shelter is found, the kelp forest opens up completely, while all the rock is covered in sticky dust. There's nobody home. The kelp forest does not recover. (Depth 15m)

f036813: This vertical wall was once covered in lush rock dwelling colonies of animals like colourful sponges, anemones, bryozoa and hydrozoa.

f036814: This is a closeup of the wall on left. Successive ecological disasters have cleared the rock, allowing a small seaweed to colonise it.

f036827: Remnants can be found of what  once lived on the vertical wall, but everything is covered in a sticky mud.

f036819: On a ledge a number of surviving sponges attempts to recover from  near-death, but all are covered in sticky dust.

f036734: Behind a rocky outcrop the cleansing action from waves can be seen. In the top right, the sessile organisms are all clean, as is the large grey sponge. But lower down, three grey sponges are dying because of being suffocated by sticky dust. Most organisms occur in an advanced state of stress.

f036735: another image showing how orange stick bryozoa are just able to survive high up the rock in the current produced by waves. But lower down organisms are dying as they have been choked by sticky dust. Over time this rock will be as barren as the others.

A network of marine protected areas The Government committed, in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (2000), to protect 10% of New Zealand's marine environment to help conserve marine biodiversity. A network of marine protected areas, which together protect a range of unique and diverse habitats and ecosystems, will contribute to this target. it may also enable marine species to move between protected areas - a series of safe havens within movement range of adults or juveniles. The Government's policy is flawed. Marine reserves do very little for marine biodiversity. For the non-fished species they have no benefit, neither for the fished migratory species as they move in and out of reserves. Only for fished resident species will they be of benefit but these can be protected in other ways. The network idea lives only in the minds of protagonists and has no ecological foundation or scientific proof. Marine species moving between protected areas will be caught just like those who live there permanently. There exists no scientific proof that marine reserves are of benefit by their contribution of juveniles.

Further north is the larger Poor Knights Islands marine reserve, and to the south Te Whanganui-a-Hei (Cathedral Cove) on the Coromandel Peninsula, and Mayor Island (Tuhua) marine reserves. It's the beginning of a network that would be greatly enhanced by a marine reserve on Great Barrier's north-east coast.
 
 

What are the benefits? A marine reserve would help us to retain, in a natural and healthy state, the great variety of plants and animals that live in the diverse marine habitats found on the north-east coast of Great Barrier Island. False. The marine reserve does not protect against degradation, which is a major problem in the proposed area.

Marine reserves:

• Help safeguard against environmental degradation and provide a benchmark against which to measure human impacts in other areas. False. They do not protect against degradation, as shown by over 2/3 of our existing coastal marine reserves including Goat Island. Yes, they can be used as a benchmark but it would be much better if scientists started studying degradation, for which there exist no benchmarks: it happens everywhere.
• Help rebuild depleted stocks of snapper, crayfish and other species, restore kelp forests and the health of marine ecosystems. There are better ways to do this, like fisheries regulation. The health of the marine ecosystem is in serious decline.
• Increase the range of fish types, as rare and more vulnerable species flourish in the marine reserve. Rare species belong to areas where they breed. They will continue to be rare, with or without a marine reserve.
• Protect the many marine processes and species we don't yet know about. False. These are just as much affected by degradation as others.
• Act as a breeding area and reservoir for depleted marine species and provide a source of larvae to boost populations inside and outside the marine reserve. A nice idea, but without scientific proof. Name some of the species that will benefit. Mature snapper move out of this area into the warm Hauraki Gulf to spawn.
• Protect large, old experienced animals which may have important genetic and social values not protected under fisheries rules. This is indeed what a reserve does well, but there are other ways for achieving this - a closed area for trawling and maximum size restrictions for instance. But its value should not be overstated, since even at the Poor Knights such large, old animals have not appeared.
• Allow fish and marine life to be observed in their natural habitat, natural sizes and numbers and exhibiting natural behaviour. There is no objection against marine reserves in hotspots, attracting both fish and divers. Point out on the map where such a hotspot is.
• Provide a window on a beautiful and fascinating underwater world. Marine reserves are ideal places for scientific study, education, snorkelling and diving, underwater photography, swimming, exploring rock pools and eco-tourism. Only when they do not degrade, have clear water and easy access, will marine reserves be used by divers, underwater photographers, eco-tourism and for education. It must be remembered that the best dive spots in Leigh are outside the marine reserve in an unprotected sea.

The problem of the Marine Reserves Act is that it provides only one tool, permanent and total closure to extraction. It is the wrong tool for this area where sustenance fishing is of major importance. Not a word is mentioned about this in the proposal. A marine reserve under the Fisheries Act however, would allow many degrees of flexibility to produce the right solution for this area.

The spill-over effect of a large marine reserve like this is but a very small fraction (5%) of the lost fishery. Although at the moment people have the right of 'free and innocent passage', if fish is found on board, the onus of proof that the fish was caught outside, will be on the fisherman and not on DOC (Marine Reserves Bill now before parliament). In the same bill one can be fined $5000 for uprooting a kelp plant. A marine reserve managed by DOC is just a nightmare.

The benefit to Leigh's economy is a myth well spread. The total benefit amounted to no more than an income for four families, which evaporated when DOC decided to ban feeding the friendly fishes. Here at the Barrier, one must not expect people to visit the proposed marine reserve like the one at Leigh which is only an hour's driving from Auckland.

Many tangata whenua wish to act as kaitiaki for the estuary, within an overall marine reserve on the north-east coast. Many tangata whenua also support continued but limited harvesting of shellfish from Whangapoua Estuary. This is not allowed in a marine reserve but tangata whenua needs could be accommodated by excluding part of the estuary from the reserve boundary.

It is here in the glossy sales brochure that we would expect to find reference to the suite of customary maori management tools that exist as a result of the 1992 Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Settlement Act and the 1996 Fisheries Act. Why do DoC continue to pretend that these statutes are irrelevant?

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that local management and co-management are most desirable, DOC has explicitly written the new marine reserves bill to exclude this. Locals must insist on gaining control and management over any marine reserve, including control over its entire budget. Obviously, DoC and the Marine Reserves Act are not the right agents for this.
Local residents should be aware that policing of this reserve is possible only by them. The vast area from 2 to 12 nautical miles out in sea is probably unpoliceable and will be poached regularly unless full co-operation from all fishermen is obtained.

The area under investigation for a marine reserve is shown here. It extends from Korotiti Bay to Needles Point in the far north, and from mean high water springs out 12 nautical miles to the limits of the territorial sea. The area includes a wide range of marine habitats, many of which are not represented in marine reserves elsewhere. These include the estuarine and beach areas of Whangapoua, exposed north-east coastline, semi-sheltered coast, Rakitu Island and its surrounding reefs, deep rocky reefs offshore, and inshore and offshore sediment areas.

Only faintly visible at the bottom of the map (but here marked in yellow) is the navy testing area where anchoring and fishing are prohibited. This de-facto marine reserve has not been included in the proposal, even though it would have been a good starting point. There has not been any research conducted to ascertain whether or not the closed area has been beneficial to the environment.
Please note the 1994 proposal boundary (marked with a dashed line) and the smaller boundary recommended by the Steering Committee in 1991 (marked with a solid line), which had the support of the locals.

Even more important than size is the right choice of boundary. Marine reserve boundaries must follow ecological boundaries that are 'meaningful' to fish. A circle around an island such as the Poor Knights, is such an ideal boundary. The boundaries in this proposal are convenient to humans but insignificant to fish (straight lines, territorial sea, promontories, etc.).

Larger marine reserves enable a wider range of habitats to be protected. So far marine reserves in the Auckland region are relatively small. A large marine reserve at Great Barrier would protect a wide range of habitats, suffer minimal effects from fishing at the edges of the reserve, and would add significantly to the network of marine protected areas in the region.

Government policy is to protect 10% of New Zealand's marine environment (the Territorial Sea to 12 nautical miles offshore) by 2010. To date we have protected about 4% of our territorial sea, but just 0.1% around mainland New Zealand [1]. so we have some way to go to meet this goal.

Government's policies are flawed. The 10% is based on a comparison of the sea with our national parks, which is invalid. Scientists have not woken up to the seriousness of environmental degradation in the sea.

[1] The 735,000 hectare Kermadec Islands marine reserve is much larger than any other marine reserve around mainland New Zealand and makes up about 3.9% of our territorial sea.
 
 
 

What's special about the north-east coast? Along much of Great Barrier's north-east coastline, natural habitats extend from the hilltops to the coast and offshore. This is uncommon in northern New Zealand due to the extent of coastal development. Because most of the land next to the proposed marine reserve is already public conservation land we have a chance to protect an unbroken sequence of natural habitats - land, estuary and sea - and manage them together.

The link between land and sea is much overestimated but the link between salt and fresh water is real. It is important to remember that the sea is an entirely different environment and that it needs to be managed in a different way. DOC has shown to be the wrong managers for the sea but they are excellent for the land.

Warm waters from the East Auckland Current bring a subtropical influence to the marine life found there and increase its biological diversity. These waters are often remarkably clear which, with the diverse seascapes and rich marine life, makes for spectacular underwater viewing.

The area is one of the last strongholds of the giant packhorse crayfish which migrate to shallow waters around north-east Great Barrier Island each season.

There are better ways to protect packhorse crayfish. Besides, they have not been seen for many years. The degraded environment is not enticing them back.

Do fishermen threaten the brown teal or dotterel?

A mixture of sponges and kelp  covers the low rocks at Rainbow Reef.

Colourful sponges feature in deep  diving depths at Rakitu

The photos shown here, taken by Dr Roger Grace, appeared in the colourful 16-page brochure. Although rendered rather dark, they still reveal the degraded nature of the rocky shore environment. The depicted orange finger sponges (Raspailia topsenti) are very hardy to degradation by mud. It is remarkable that other types of sponge are absent from these images. The kelp plants are all the same age since they were destroyed in 1993. It is an unhealthy and unnatural forest now. The demoiselles in the photo are all juvenile. In 1991 and in 2002 the majority of demoiselles died in this area. In 2002 nearly all encrusting sponges, bryozoa and hydroids died, as did many fish.

In this photo also the influence of mud can be seen. The pink coloured rocks extend above the sea bottom. They are angular in shape meaning that they are not moved very often, unlike rolling stones. All plants in the image are short-lived and attached to the clean parts of the protruding stones. This is very much the look of a degraded environment where grazers such as urchins, chitons and top shells have disappeared recently.

Red seaweeds on the gravel bottom.

Ask for the video to see how much this environment is covered in mud.

Conservation land does not surround the estuary, but there is some near it. The bacteria and 'fungi' on which the food chain depends are found in every drop of sea water and every square millimetre of sea bottom.

Mangrove forests, seagrass and wetlands do not supply nutrients. The mud from the land does. The number of marine fish species depending on an estuary is very small but any species may occasionally stray there. Estuaries like other sheltered places, help recruitment (settling out from the planktonic stage) of some marine species. Yellow eyed mullet has been observed to go upstream into freshwater and wetlands to spawn.

Does fishing affect these?

Shellfish beds thrive from a moderate amount of exploitation. The front page of the coloured brochure shows tracks in the sand caused by cockles on the move from crowded areas. This is a symptom of under-harvesting. By judicious harvesting, people can enhance the productivity of cockle beds. The problem is that the MRA does not provide enough flexibility for allowing a limited and supervised harvest. DOC is the wrong agent and the MRA the wrong tool for marine reserves in the 21st century.

The Minister of Conservation will make the final decision on the application, which also requires agreement from the Ministers of Fisheries and Transport.

Locals are very wary of DoC handling the submission. They have been through the process twice. When will a final rejection be respected?

The objectives of a marine reserve on Great Barrier island are:

• To establish a marine reserve conforming to provisions of Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the marine Reserves Act 1971.
• To protect and maintain a large section of the diverse marine ecosystem and biodiversity on the north-east coast of Great Barrier island, that is ecologically continuous with already protected adjacent terrestrial habitats.
• To protect a wide variety of marine habitats and their marine life, including continental shelf deep water rocky and sediment habitats not represented in marine reserves elsewhere.
• To provide a safe haven for several species of marine animals presently impacted by fishing, and to allow them to recover to their natural population and social structure.
• To provide a marine reserve which is large enough to minimise side effects of fishing, and to provide a large central core area of protection to allow ecological, social and behavioural characteristics of marine communities to function without interference.
• To provide opportunities for scientific study, including study of the relative merits of large versus small marine reserves.
• To provide opportunities for public enjoyment of non-extractive high quality marine recreational activities.
• To form a link in the national network of marine reserves in accordance with New Zealand's Biodiversity Strategy (He Kura Taiao) and to contribute towards the Government's target of protecting 10% of New Zealand's marine environment by 2010.

 

Do you really think the above objectives will be met? The era for coastal marine reserves has passed. Our seas can be saved only by saving the land and by improving fisheries regulations. Our only option is to stop the whole marine reserves process so that lies, myths and fallacies can be ironed out and solutions found that will work.