Damaged beauty or potential paradise?
Recent studies (from 2001 to 2004) indicate no real recovery of species abundance since the surveys of the 1970s and 1980s, and include some notable declines in abundance of certain species. The numbers of tuatua and oysters are greatly reduced in the Marine Park. Packhorse crayfish are now uncommon with no large individuals seen in recent surveys. Red crayfish numbers have stagnated with few large animals.
Despite the Marine Park being introduced in a bid to protect and restore the Mimiwhangata marine environment, fish abundance has not improved since the mid-1970s’ surveys.

The whole purpose of this marine park was not to optimise the environment but the pleasure one gets from gathering one's own seafood while being in a beautiful area. Management of the park has been very slack, as witnessed by the lack of appropriate signs at boat ramps. Many people who fish here, are not aware of regulations. With proper local management, the existing rules could have been tightened to achieve a higher degree of protection.

There exists no doubt that access to the sea has become more common-place, and this can be controlled. But because of its remoteness and exposure, fishing pressure in this area is rather low. However, Mimiwhangata has also suffered from immense degradation as the water's quality impoverished. But why are we discovering only today that there's less fish than anticipated?

The magic of the 'good old days' has disappeared along NZ's entire coastline due to a sudden increase in degradation from land-based run-off. The sea's natural processes can no longer return the marine environment to what it was in 'the good old days'. A fully protected marine reserve will not protect from the sea's main threat, although it could result in more fish. But is this what we want at the cost of no longer being able to fish? Scientists keep hammering the argument that marine reserves work because heavily exploited species recover, but there is overwhelming evidence that all other species are declining in ALL of our 17 coastal marine reserves. Are they blind? So far they have no evidence that marine reserves have been beneficial to all the other species. Why? Are we setting up marine reserves just to boost numbers of snapper and crayfish?

A policy of lock-up and hope? It is absolutely UNnecessary to have marine reserves in order to increase our knowledge of how marine ecosystems work. The sea is still so much in its original state (in unpolluted areas) that these are far more pristine than any national park on land. Furthermore, fishing has very little influence on the vast majority of species and thus the ecosystems they form. Have scientists forgotten to look there?

Due to the size of the document we have separated the document into the following sections:

    * Marine reserve proposal and Historical splendour (PDF, 154K)
    * Damaged beauty or potential paradise (PDF, 105K)
    * Why protect Mimiwhangata? (PDF, 245K)
    * Marine reserves (PDF, 371K)
    * The Mimiwhangata proposal (PDF, 177K)
    * Community consultation - the next steps (PDF, 144K)

The complete text and images of the above PDF documents have been brought together in this HTML document, together with balancing analytic comments, maps and more photos ACTUALLY taken inside the Mimiwhangata Marine Park area..

For a hard-copy, contact our Mimiwhangata Call Centre on +64 9 459 7942 or email Mimiwhangata.

All submissions are due by the 12th of October 2004 and can either be emailed or posted to:

    Mimiwhangata Discussion Document,
    Department of Conservation,
    Northland Conservancy,
    PO Box 842,
    WHANGAREI.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Contents

1. Mimiwhangata -Historical Splendour
2. Damaged Beauty or Potential Paradise?

• Onshore
• Marine environment
• Mimiwhangata can be fixed
• The community can make it work
• Central government mandate

3. Why Protect Mimiwhangata?

• Why protect Mimiwhangata ’s marine environment?
• How damaged is Mimiwhangata ’s marine
environment?
• How did this happen?
• The proposed marine reserve option

4. Marine Reserves

• What is a marine reserve?
• How is it different from a marine park?
• Does the size of the marine reserve matter?
• Benefits inside the reserve boundary
• Benefits beyond the boundaries of marine reserves
• How quickly do marine reserves work?

5. The Mimiwhangata Proposal

• Proposed boundaries
• Proposed traditional management area
• How would a marine reserve support kaitiakitanga?
• Establishing a marine reserve: how the process works
• Who would manage the marine reserve?
• How will the community know if it is working?

6. Community Consultation -The Next Steps

• Key Questions
• What should we do now?
• What will happen next?

“Ki te tangi a Tuka -iaia kei te moana a Ngatiwai e haere ana ” “When the Molly Hawk cries out at sea, Ngatiwai tribe is on the move at sea. When the Molly Hawk cries over the land, Ngatiwai move inland.”

This paragraph above is about the tribe of Ngatiwai who are descendants of their many ancestors who lived along the coastal areas, and who knew the sacred fishing grounds, and the seabed areas of shell fish, and who respected them.
 
 

Translation: We are children of the sea. We need to take care of our sea food, no matter what they are, because they are becoming very scarce or near to extinction, because of the shortage of food for them. Even rare species of fish are gradually disappearing. I myself feel that there should be a ban or a Rahui Tapu placed for at least twenty to twenty five years, to allow the sea weed to regenerate so the rare species of fish, crayfish etc. will return and grow, for our posterity to come. This is a desire, a dream for us Ngatiwai, Auie! Let us go forth together to support this great project under the guiding influence of our Father in Heaven. It is disrespectful that DoC has fed its valued partner with so much disinformation and deceit about what marine reserves actually do, that it has created expectations it cannot fulfill. Ngatiwae expects an area closure time of one generation, no longer than 25 years, but under the Marine Reserves Act this won't be possible. Again an expectation that DoC cannot honour. It would not be surprising therefore, and indeed honourable if Ngati Wai pulled out of the deal. - read on.

Yes, the reality of 50 years ago has not been reached by any of our existing coastal marine reserves and never will, as they degrade further from year to year, while losing both quantity and quality of life. They are unsustainable. Instead of evaluating the health of our existing reserves, DoC keeps spreading the message that we need more (of such failed reserves). Here too it is guided by a policy of lock up and hope.

In the 1960s the property was purchased by New Zealand Breweries. The company soon realised the area was a special part of New Zealand. It abandoned plans to build a resort in the area and set about turning Mimiwhangata into a park, both on and offshore, for all New Zealanders to enjoy.
In the 1970s, New Zealand Breweries commissioned scientific studies that revealed an exceptional diversity of Northland east coast near-shore habitats within the Mimiwhangata marine area (1).

There were concerns expressed in the reports that fishing pressures were increasing and would continue to threaten the ecology of the area if special protection measures were not put in place. In 1975 a trust was set up to administer the property and work towards creating a Coastal Farm Park and Marine Park. The Coastal Farm Park was opened in 1980. Over the next few years, the Government purchased the land known as the Coastal Farm Park, and a Marine Park was finally established in 1984. There was a vision that the Marine Park would preserve and enhance one of New Zealand ’s special environments for people to visit and enjoy.
New surveys of the Marine Park carried out during the past three years have shown that the Marine Park ’s environment has not recovered, and in some respects is in a worse state than in 1980 (2, 3, 4).
As the scientific investigation has progressed, members of the Mimiwhangata community, including tangata whenua/moana, local land owners, visitors, fishers, divers, scientists, environmentalists and the Department of Conservation (DoC) have begun to discuss “where to next ” for the area. This proposal aims to further this discussion in the community.
 

From Left to Right: 1 . The North Island variable oystercatcher breeds in the sand dunes at Mimiwhangata. 2. The endangered pateke, or brown teal. 3. A rare subtropical, red-lined bubble shell.  4. Sponges and gorgonians are abundant on the deep reefs beyond the kelp forests. 5. Young tropical surgeonfish occasionally arrive at Mimiwhangata. None of these species are threatened by fishing.

Had the purpose of the marine park been to protect the environment, fishing would have been banned right from the beginning, but the park's purpose has always been that of enjoyment, for people to enjoy themselves on land and on the water, while being able to catch a fish. Although commercial fishing has been banned from the 20km2 park area, it will still leave its influence on fish densities inside the park, as most commercially fished species move about.

It is sad that the authors again take refuge in the kina barrens hypothesis which has been firmly relegated to the land of myths. Read Science exposed for the whole analysis. In a nut shell, scientists made three cardinal mistakes: 1) They compared an exposed N-NE coasts inside marine reserves with a semi-sheltered W-SW coast outside marine reserves, deliberately choosing the only two reserves where habitat change had happened. 2) They did not look at the more suitable N-NE coasts of Kawau Island and Little Barrier Island, where the urchin barrens also disappeared, but these are not protected. 3) They ignored the more plausible explanation of degradation, even though massive degradation had happened just before their experiments: 1993 complete kelpbed death; around 1995 massive urchin mortality; 1998 near-complete crayfish walk-out. Scientifically speaking, they did not prove that the habitat changes were NOT caused by degradation. Their null-hypothesis was wrong, which also puts a large question mark over ALL marine research done in the past two decades. If your null-hypothesis is wrong, it invalidates all your work! What a mess!

Below Left: An aerial shot of Mimiwhangata. Below Centre: Kina grazing the edge of the kelp forest, with a spotty above. Inside the MMP? Below Right: Kina barrens are a long-term result of reductions in snapper and crayfish numbers.

Below Left: A diver in the 1970s examines a sponge at Mimiwhangata. Below Centre: The New Zealand dotterel, considered 'at risk', is found at Mimiwhangata. Threatened by fishing? Below Right: A fish’s view of a pohutukawa from a rock pool.

Already for 14 years, Seafriends have been trying to get scientists interested in what has become the sea's major problem by far: degradation from land-based pollution. To say that these effects are not yet fully understood is an understatement, as scientists have not even begun to look! Please read our sections on soil and erosion in order to understand fully what is happening.
A fully forested catchment area would help water quality but pollution is dispersed far and wide by coastal currents. For instance, the catchment area of the Goat Island marine reserve is indeed very small but it did not protect the reserve from major degradation in the past 15 years.

Oops. Because water does not flow uphill, the sea is profoundly influenced by the land but not the other way round. It is furthermore false to use a marine reserve to halt harmful development. If development is harmful, it must be prevented, with or without marine reserve.
Nature will only recover when ALL unnatural threats are taken away. By leaving pollution in the sea, this area WILL NOT RECOVER. It is a simple ecological law backed by evidence from 17 marine reserves in NZ. Marine reserves WILL NOT WORK where pollution remains. Scientists repeatedly confuse themselves and the public about what recovery is and means. They look at a few fished species and then draw conclusions for the whole ecosystem. Yes, fished species become more numerous when fishing stops, but it has nowhere been shown that this is also BETTER for the whole environment. When will scientists begin looking at all the other thousands of species that are fast disappearing?

From Left to Right: 1. Sponge gardens and goatfish are commonly found where the deep reef meets the sand.  2. Gorgonians and large cup sponges can often be found in the deep reefs beyond the kelp forest.  3. Abundant pink gorgonian fans.  4. Black coral tree and  sponges.   5. A jock stewart sits amongst the gorgonian fans.  Are these threatened by fishing?

Photo provided by Seafriends Most urchin barrens of Mimiwhangata are not devoid of life but contain a large and productive variety of species. Where kina abound, they are culled by people, which keeps their numbers down, one would think. But populations often respond favourably to modest exploitation.

Photo provided by Seafriends A large predatory seven-armed star (Astrostole scabra)  hunting for kina as the two on left are still outrunning it. As some urchin predators are removed by fishers, one would think that others like this starfish would increase their numbers. They do not. Why?

Photo provided by Seafriends A large organ sponge (Calyspongia sp) died from pollution as have most of the others we encountered. See also the photo above showing a dead organ sponge.

Photo provided by Seafriends This sheltered wall is studded with stick bryozoa, all suffocating in mud and exhibiting poor condition. Soon it is curtains for all.

Let there be no misunderstanding! DoC does NOT have a mandate from the NZ public! What it refers to is an entirely undemocratic and unconstitutional process which has two aspects. Firstly the biodiversity strategy came from an undemocratic  and unconstitutional conference of the United Nations, visited by green scientists who made recommendations. Once NZ became a signatory, we suddenly had the international obligation to implement its recommendations of locking up 20-50% of the sea. But the public has never voted for it. To make matters worse, it is also flawed by assuming that fully no-take marine reserves are the only way to achieve environmental protection of biodiversity. But biodiversity is about viable populations of all species, not necessarily unexploited ones. Unexploited populations simply do not exist in nature. Then finally, the Green Party was given the nod for half its desire of locking up 20% of the sea, a kind of horse-trading deal. There exists no NZ law backing the 10% or the network or any more reserves than strictly necessary for doing research! DoC may refer to the Marine Reserves Bill now before Parliament, but this selfish, poorly crafted law kindled so much fury and adverse reaction that it will never pass. By now it has been postponed for so long that it must be re-done. To make matters worse, it is DOA (Dead On Arrival) since it would lock NZ into a dead end. Read the war introduction for more detail. The only mandate DoC can get for this proposal, is overwhelming public support. Should that fail, the mandate also fails.
Reader please note that Cabinet makes day to day decisions that are not voted on. However, those that affect many people (1 million fishermen, 1000 unemployed, $100M per year) while taking their birth rights away, must not be left decided in such small committee.

The most important features of the MMP are its sandy beaches and islands. Visiting boats can always find a sheltered spot to anchor and fish while enjoying the beautiful surroundings. Fishermen find out very quickly whether it is worth their while to fish inside the MMP.

Below Left: The kina barren habitat will diminish over time as snapper and crayfish numbers rebuild. Below Centre: A scene beneath a healthy Ecklonia forest. Below Right: 4-metre tall forests of tangle-kelp are found in sheltered rocky areas. Were these photos taken inside the MMP? It does not seem so.

From Left to Right: 1. Sunrise over Okupe Beach.  2. Red moki, one of the large reef fish, can reach 60 years of age.  3. A number of scientific studies have been completed at Mimiwhangata over the last thirty years, measuring the changes to the environment.

The deep reefs off Rimariki Island extend 3.5 kilometres to the east, and are up to 100 metres deep. The centre of this reef area is highly broken, with gulleys, crevices and protruding rock in excess of 5 metres high. At 33-37 metres in depth, the reef community makes a dramatic transition to a community dominated by filter feeding invertebrates. Beyond this depth, the kelp forests of the shallow reef areas no longer grow due to lack of light. Soft corals and sponges dominate this deep reef invertebrate community.

In biological terms, this deep reef habitat is very rich in both diversity and abundance. Known as “high-relief deep reefs ”, the contour of this habitat is especially complex, consisting of gulleys and pinnacles averaging three metres or more in height (see habitat map). The physical complexity of this reef system (and the passing currents) increases the diversity and abundance of the reef. Surrounding it are large areas of low-relief reef and patch reef areas, where reefs are broken by sand and cobble bottom. This reef system is considered to be representative of northeast coast near-shore reef systems, to a depth of 100 metres.
To the north and south, the areas of patch reef change to sand areas. Mimiwhangata is already highly valued as an ecological, cultural and recreational area. If it is fully protected, many people from all over Northland, New Zealand and the world will be able to experience and treasure this varied marine environment in a natural, thriving state. If you are also able to stop degradation which has accelerated steeply over the past 15 years, and also facilitate access, but who will be able to experience anything found deeper than 30m outside the present boundaries?
Mimiwhangata is a well studied part of New Zealand ’s coastline, which complements other east coast areas where extensive study has taken place e.g. Poor Knights Islands, Cape Rodney to Okakari Point (Leigh) Marine Reserve. Scientists have been surveying Mimiwhangata over a 30 year period. People have fished there for centuries and a lot is known about the area. If Mimiwhangata is designated as a Marine Reserve, it will be possible to study how well and how quickly the recovery takes place. Do we really need yet another study whether marine reserves do work? We already have so much failed research that taught us nothing about the environment.
Mimiwhangata will add a valuable array of protected habitats to an emerging network of protected areas along the northeast coast of New Zealand. This will be useful in many ways. It will allow people to understand and experience a coastal environment in a near-natural state. It will also provide much needed information about the marine ecosystem to guide management decisions for the whole coast. We have wasted 15 valuable years doing nothing about marine degradation. How many years before effective management decisions are made? The knowledge is there, all brought together on the Seafriends web site. The problem with Mimiwhangata is that it is of little value for marine research because it is special, unlike the more representative stretches of coast. It is there that scientists must clamour for their marine reserves. Furthermore, it is highly questionable whether marine research done with Baited Underwater Video will have any relevance to the management of our coasts and fisheries!

From Left to Right: 1. A packhorse crayfish with a group of smaller red crayfish.  2. A leatherjacket nibbles at sponges on a rock wall.  3. This spotted black grouper lived in a particular hole at Mimiwhangata for approximately five years. Why has it gone?  4. Porae are frequently found where the sand meets the rocks. Inside the MMP?

Fish
Prior to the 1970s large snapper were frequently seen and caught at Mimiwhangata. Anecdotal reports from this period suggest that commercial trawling, long lining and set netting were gradually reducing the numbers (12). Commercial fishing ceased in the Marine Park in 1993. In recent surveys, young snapper have been infrequently seen at Mimiwhangata, but there are few older, large snapper. In a 2002 survey, it was found that Mimiwhangata had fewer and smaller snapper than Cape Brett, the Mokohinau Islands and the Poor Knights Islands. There was also no significant difference in snapper numbers between the areas inside the Mimiwhangata Marine Park, and reference sites outside but near the Marine Park. Preliminary comparison of data from historic sample areas within the Marine Park shows little change in the abundance of reef fish. Analysis of the latest survey data is currently in progress.

Kelp forests
There are some spectacular examples around Mimiwhangata of kelp forest decline. For example, at Pa Point in 1976 there was a lush, tall, dense forest of kelp. By the early 1980s the extent of the forested areas was decreasing, and by summer 1986 (and continuing to 2003), only sparse remnants of the kelp forest remained. This change is influenced by an increase in kina, which feed on the kelp forest.  This increase may occur because the predators of kina, such as large snapper and crayfish, are now less common in the shallow reef areas. As a result, the kina have drastically increased in number, impacting on the kelp and creating areas which are now commonly referred to as “kina barrens ”. This is a major habitat change to a less productive state, with possibly serious ecological impacts. Again, the urchin barrens myth. Where is the data measuring kina densities? Other factors which may affect the kelp forest growth and decline are storms, algae blooms and variations in ocean temperatures (and primarily degradation). (Please see photos top of page 10).
 

Photo provided by Seafriends There is something else happening to the kelp forests in a wide region ranging from Great Barrier to Cavalli Islands. The above photo, taken at Arid Island NE Great Barrier Island, shows how the kelp forest diminishes in the absence of kina, as it is replaced by turfing coralline algae. This is caused by a chronic lack of light due to murky waters, one aspect of degradation.

Changes due to natural or other causes
Noticeable now at Pa Point are increased silt deposits, starfish species in abundance, and significant invasion of the exotic parchment worm which smothers the indigenous encrusting reef life. These are all very strong indicators of degradation, as is the demise of tuatua shellfish beds.

Oysters
Rock oysters have almost died out in parts of the Marine Park. This could be due to natural causes which are not fully understood, but the decline may have been hastened by significant harvesting in the 1981-82 summer, and may be due to Pacific oysters arriving in the area in the late 1970s.

Tuatua
Tuatua numbers fell from beds of 10 million small tuatua in the 1970s to around 800, 000 middle-sized to large tuatua in the 1980s and since then they have almost disappeared. In recent years, tuatua have been hard to find on Mimiwhangata Beach, although occasional individual tuatua are found on all the sandy beaches in the area. The natural fluctuations and various causes for these fluctuations of tuatua populations are not well understood, therefore the dramatic changes measured at Mimiwhangata over the last three decades may be due to natural causes, as opposed to human harvesting. Note that the shellfish of Cheltenham Beach (Takapuna, Auckland) are not coming back, even after a prolonged period of protection. Why?

Scallops
Small numbers of large scallops (e.g.. 120mm) were often found in the coarse sand sediments between Rimariki Island and the mainland in the 1970s’ surveys. These rapidly declined and were not found in the 1980s surveys. More recently (March 2004), scallops were reported washed up in considerable numbers on Mimiwhangata Beach after a very large northeasterly swell event, indicating there are still some scallop beds remaining in Mimiwhangata Bay. No other information on scallops was gathered in the 2001-2004 surveys. The impact of human activity on scallop populations at Mimiwhangata is unclear.
 
 

From Left to Right: 1. Rock oysters have become less common at Mimiwhangata.  2. Tangle weed kelp. Healthy kelp forests such as this are now less common at Mimiwhangata.  3. In this aerial shot, the dark patches are kelp forest, while the light-coloured areas of rock are areas of “kina barren”.

From Left to Right: 1. Tuatua underwater at Mimiwhangata beach.  2. A sample of tuatua surveyed on Mimiwhangata beach in the 1970s.  3. This scene is typical of a "kina barren", where kelp forests are eaten by the increasing number of kina. Taken in the MMP?

The tangle weed or flexible weed (Carpophyllum flexuosum) is repeatedly mentioned as if the writers are unfamiliar with its ecology. This seaweed belongs to sheltered waters and survives in rather degraded conditions. However, along exposed coasts where it does not belong, it may occasionally be found in stunted form after a long absence of storms. For the MMP, tangle weed is a non-event.

Left: This 1950 aerial photo shows lush dark-coloured tangle kelp forest around the reef off Pa Point. Right: The same area in 2003 shows dramatic reduction of kelp cover and its replacement by pale-coloured “kina barrens”. It is dangerous to compare photos of unequal quality. Tangle kelp does not belong to an exposed coast. Besides, urchin barrens come and go, particularly where the sand is shallow as in this example. Refer to the habitat map to see for yourself that the urchin barrens are but a small part of the kelp zone and a very small part of the total MMP.

Ecological Connections From Left to Right: 1. A red crayfish lurking under a rocky ledge.  2. Snapper eat small kina. Remove too many snapper and the kina multiply.  3. The tangle-kelp, Carpophyllum flexuosum , was once abundant at Pa Point.  4. The common kelp, Ecklonia radiata , forms extensive forests at Mimiwhangata, but has been reduced in the shallow part of its range by grazing kina.  5. Large numbers of kina damage the kelp forests. This imbalance may be corrected in a marine reserve. Please state where these photos were taken. Reader, the photo of the snapper escaping with a kina was taken at  Goat Island by Dr Floor Anthoni on 25 Feb 2000. DoC 'used' it for no remuneration, no permission, no acknowledgment. How much deeper can it sink?

Some accounts describe pair trawlers operating in Mimiwhangata Bay (12). As a result, the marine environment was starting to show significant decline. The Marine Park was established in a bid to protect and restore the Mimiwhangata marine environment. There are a number of possible reasons why the Marine Park concept has not delivered positive results at Mimiwhangata. These reasons may have resulted from the environment responding differently than expected, may involve changes in human impacts over the time period or possibly combinations of both. Examples of possible reasons include:

• Environmental degradation foremost
• Slower rates of reproduction than were expected in some species
• Increased visitor/fisher numbers as road access improved and the number of boat owners increased
• Increased boating activity, size of boats, number of fishers per boat and use of electronic fishing aids
• Increased fishing and shellfish collecting in and around the Marine Park
• The complexity of the fishing regulations that were established for the Marine Park
• Poor signage at boat ramps
• Uncertainty in public perceptions of who was responsible for the Marine Park, with DoC responsible for land and the Ministry of Fisheries being responsible for the Marine Park regulations
• Lack of interest from the Ministry of Fisheries
• Poor policing and education
• Lack of visible positive results being measured and reported back to the community
• Lack of timely monitoring
• Lack of allocated resources to manage the Marine Park and to enforce the Park’s fishing restrictions.
• Lack of local management with a budget.

Mimiwhangata Marine Park is an area that is pleasant to visit and to fish in. As a result, it may be more heavily fished than other coastal areas, possibly creating the opposite result to that intended. Allowing for selective fishing methods may encourage people to fish even more in the Marine Park, because there may be a perception amongst fishers that fish will be larger and more plentiful under the partial protection rules of the Marine Park.
 
 

The proposed marine reserve option It is possible with community and iwi support to establish a fully protected conservation area at Mimiwhangata by establishing a Marine Reserve. The Marine Reserve option at Mimiwhangata represents a change in objectives, from a combined fishery and conservation objective, to an objective that is solely focused on protecting the area in as natural a state as possible, for study and enjoyment of the community. The Marine Reserve concept makes use of a simple management rule that is easy for people to understand.

 
 

4. Marine reserves What is a Marine Reserve? Marine Reserves are the “national parks” of the sea, where underwater features and marine life enjoy complete protection. Their legal purpose is to protect areas of New Zealand that contain underwater scenery, natural features or marine life, of such distinctive quality or so typical or beautiful or unique, that their continued preservation is in the national interest.

Because much of our underwater environment has been altered by human activities, we need to protect parts of the sea that closely represent examples of what was originally there. Within a Marine Reserve, marine life is left to recover and flourish in its natural state - for its own sake and for future generations to study and appreciate. It provides a rich environment teeming with hundreds of species of sea life.
This provides a safe breeding environment that has the potential, in time, to increase the quantity and quality of marine life available outside the reserve. As with national parks, people are encouraged to visit, explore and learn from Marine Reserves. Most Mimiwhangata locals know that the area is not as bountiful now as it was in “the old days”. A Marine Reserve may help recovery of the marine environment and species, and protect marine life for the benefit of present and future generations.

Again a long paragraph aimed to deceive. To make comparisons between terrestrial national parks and the sea is meaningless. Not just because the sea is an entirely different environment, but also because our national parks cover the wastelands and they are still teeming with introduced pest, offering little protection to our sensitive native species, many of which have no hope of salvation. On land we have changed over 80% permanently and irreversibly so. And global climate change is still to wreak havoc there.
By contrast, the sea is productive everywhere and accessible too. It is least disturbed because we don't live there, farm the sea bottom, build motorways and so on. Locking parts of the sea up means also forfeiting benefits to future generations. In a civil society this is not done when the disadvantages outweigh the benefits, which is the case with most of our marine reserves so far. Worse still, those promoting such reserves have not even taken the trouble of evaluating assets versus liabilities, which is disrespectful.
One can take offence with the purism expressed by pro-reserve lobbyists who apply one standard for the land and a much more stringent standard for the sea. The reality is that this planet has been swamped by 6,000,000,000 individuals of our kind, far more than any other species of even half our size, and this will almost double within 30 years. Where people tread, nature yields. A new nature emerges capable of our abuse and also exploiting us. Something likewise happens in the sea. A new nature, which in the sea is not radically different to what in our minds is the pristine situation. The good old days cannot come back, however hard we try, and in the face of rampantly accelerating pollution, is now further away than it ever was.
If we truly want to save the sea, rather than building empires of networks of unnatural enclaves, we must focus on the sea's number one threat, that of land-based degradation, and must manage our fishing with larger stocks. These measures will do far more than marine reserves ever will. Only by saving the land can we save the sea!
 

So many people make much ado about the environmental damage caused by fishing and trawling but why is it then that marine environments recover so quickly after fishing stops? The answer must be found from understanding how the food pyramid works, see the diagram on right. By far the largest amount of food is made by phytoplankton, which from necessity cannot grow even as large as visible specks in the sea but we can observe it as mist. Tiny animals in the zoo plankton however, feast on it, grazing the plant matter and converting its solar energy into larger parcels (themselves). These in turn are eaten by larger animals like fish larvae, which in turn are eaten by bait fish until finally the table fish consume them. It explains why marine creatures produce so much spawn, 99.999% for making food, rather than procreation. Note that each higher tier is very much smaller in biomass than the one beneath, due to losses in energy and wastes. Fishing now consists of taking a bite from the very top tiers, which amounts to only a very small bite from the whole. By contrast, degradation takes a bite from the bottom tiers, thereby profoundly affecting all tiers above. This has made degradation the largest threat by far. The bottom line is that a ban on fishing has very little effect on the whole ecosystem and it explains why all of our marine reserves are performing so badly. Do we need more failed marine reserves? Obviously a moratorium on marine reserves is needed in order to be able to iron out all myths and fallacies and to be able to do the right thing for the right reasons at the right time. We owe it to our children.

The current Mimiwhangata partial protection rules under the Fisheries Regulations are summarised on page 14.

• All commercial fishing ceased as of October 1993. Packhorse crayfish protected in 1994
• Amateur fishers may only use unweighted, single-hooked lines, trolling, spearing and handpicking to take fish and  shell fish species listed as:

By contrast, Marine Reserves are “no-take” zones, focused on preservation of marine habitats and life for scientific study. The clear and simple no-take rule makes Marine Reserves easier to monitor and enforce, both through community action and legal action if necessary. There is recent evidence based on research at the Poor Knights Islands Marine Reserve, that conservation outcomes are more significant in a Marine Reserve than in a partially protected area (13).
 

Oops, poppycock! Let's now check out the situation at the Poor Knights Islands where fishing was stopped altogether in the beginning of 1999. DoC paid a whopping $283,000 for a study to demonstrate that marine reserves work. Snapper numbers indeed increased, but not mentioned in the report (14) were far more important results shown here. The graph shows fish density vertically and years horizontally. Scientists essentially counted fish numbers in a transect the size of a tennis court. What is significant is that these fish are not the migrants or weirdos but common fish that belong and breed there. As you can see, all species tell the tale of chronic decline due to degradation. But sweep, which does not belong in the clear waters of the Poor Knights, suddenly became common, replacing the more sensitive blue maomao (not measured!!!), which is a sure indicator of degradation.

Fishing outside a marine reserve reduces numbers of species like snapper inside the edge of the reserve. In larger marine reserves the “edge effect” is a much smaller proportion of the total area.

The illustration above shows a possible model of the “edge effect” close to the Marine Reserve boundary. Larger Marine Reserves enable a wider range of habitats to be protected. The Mimiwhangata area is rich in habitat diversity. The largest possible area under protection will allow for more of these habitats to function fully and have a greater potential contribution to the overall coastal system. Larger overall size will minimise effects from fishing at the edges of the reserve, and would potentially add more diversity and more marine habitats to the network of marine protected areas in northeast New Zealand.
 
 

Benefits inside the reserve boundary When a no-take area is established, it assists recovery of the environment to a state which is more comparable to its condition before it started to decline. Recovering habitats become nurseries (kohanga) in which the sea life grows bigger, more plentiful and varied than in surrounding fished areas. Bigger animals produce substantially more young. When more young are produced, they may drift or swim into the surrounding areas.

Another paragraph to deceive more gullible people. As we have shown extensively before and on the Seafriends web site, our coastal seas CANNOT return to their condition before their decline unless we clean up the water by saving the land. Make no mistake about this. None of our coastal marine reserves have produced more and bigger sea life (some fished species, yes) and more varied because they are all degrading. This can easily be verified, but the fact is that DoC does not make funds available to do so. Business people know that what is not measured, is not managed, and they can therefore rightfully accuse DoC of poor management, because it does not know whether our marine reserves are getting better or worse. To make matters worse still, DoC is spreading the FALSE expectation that they do, insisting on MORE FAILED RESERVES everywhere. How can common-sense justify this?
Although it can be demonstrated that in marine reserves the fished resident species produce more spawn, this bears no relationship with the number of recruits produced elsewhere. Fish spawn prolifically to make food (99.999%), rather than offspring (0.001%).

The most gullible of all are scientists themselves. The study referred to, lumped all marine reserves together and came up with a figure, without distinguishing those in heavily exploited tropical seas from well managed ones in temperate seas (NZ). When each of the examples is analysed separately, it becomes clear that by far most of the (fishery) benefits resulted from improved fisheries management and forced retirement. Read Myths2 for all the details and further references. It has furthermore been shown that most of the studies included in this report cannot be trusted for their robustness, in other words, they are poor science. Read Myths6 and Burdens of Evidence (260KB PDF) (15) for the whole story.

This chart shows the number of snapper sighted using a Baited Underwater Video (BUV), at sites within and outside three marine reserves around New Zealand in the same calendar year. As you can see, there is a large difference between the figures at each location (4, 15, 17).

The graph presented here is derived from a DoC-funded study by Willis, Millar and Babcock (16). This study compared three marine reserves with reference areas nearby. Apart from the fact that all three reserves occupy special habitat, whereas the reference areas do not, the actual results do not look quite as shown above, as you can verify. Fig 2a counts all snapper, 3a legal size snapper and 3b sublegal size snapper. (2b represents cumulative biomass.) Apparently, DoC's chart refers to the most favourable result for legal sized snapper only, but even then it has taken only the most favourable point in  April1999. We ask ourselves whether this is a fair representation and if it is not, why do scientists debase themselves to this level? Why are other scientists not correcting this misrepresentation of facts, and why does DoC resort to such tactics? Another fact withheld is that marine reserves recover within one or two years for adult snapper, who migrate there from outside. We also have serious doubts about the method used to count fish, the Baited Underwater Video (BUV) because it defies important scientific principles of measuring apparatus as it influences the quantity measured. In doing so, it exaggerates. The BUV method and all results obtained with it should be disqualified as scientific. Read science exposed.

Fig. 2. Mean reserve (filled symbols) and non-reserve (open symbols) snapper Pagrus auratus relative density at Leigh, Hahei and Tawharanui from November 1997 to April 1999. (a) Total numerical relative density, all size classes (MAXsna); (b) relative biomass.

Fig. 3. Mean reserve (filled symbols) and non-reserve (open symbols) snapper Pagrus auratus numerical relative density at Leigh, Hahei and Tawharanui from November 1997 to April 1999. (a) Fish > minimum legal size (LEGsna); (b) fish < minimum legal size (JUVsna).

This chart shows crayfish numbers within Cape Rodney to Okakari Point (Leigh) Marine Reserve, compared to those outside the reserve. Natural fluctuations in crayfish numbers are likely to have caused the decline in 2000. Despite this drop, there is still a marked difference in numbers at each site (20, 21, 22). The crayfish walk-out in 1998 was caused by a prolonged period of spring rain storms, reducing the water's quality considerably. It is cynical to call this a natural fluctuation. Although two groups of scientists were working with crayfish at the time, and Floor Anthoni reported the loss of crayfish three times to the Marine Laboratory, scientists still don't know what had happened! Note that the graph covers a long period of high densities (1980 to1998= 18 years) followed by four years of much lower densities of mainly young crayfish. Why this misrepresentation?

There appears to be an undue focus on snapper and crayfish to the detriment of those fish species that have actually enjoyed most protection. Where is their data?

Again an attempt to deceive. More sea life above, means more of some fished species. In a working marine reserve, however, the total amount of sea life diminishes rather than increases, because the larger predators (and grazers) need to be fed. In the process some 70-90% of what they eat is wasted. Thus also the total spawn mass from a successful marine reserve becomes less than from its surroundings. Protagonists often claim that spillover benefits fisheries, but forget to mention the lost fishery inside a marine reserve. Practical studies have shown conclusively that spillover is substantially less than the lost fishery, which stands to reason, as one does not wish the breeding stocks to spill out.
Scientists seem surprised about residential behaviour of migrant species. They seem unaware that the sea has hot spots where fish like to be, and once their numbers increase, these attract more fish. Goat Island, jutting out into clearer water and currents, offering shelter while close to feeding grounds, is such a place. Islands are so too. It so happens that most of the marine reserves (I think ALL) are located in special places, so observations in such reserves must be interpreted with care. However, protagonist scientists do not take such care, to the extent that no marine science done in NZ can be taken seriously any longer. This is an important message for the public! Distrust everything scientists say, as substantiated by these rebuttals.

When fishing stops, changes happen immediately. First fast, then more slowly until finally a kind of equilibrium is reached. It is therefore ecologically illogical to expect sudden changes at a late age. If hapuku, groupers, packhorse crays and others are expected to return, then their most decisive years will be the first years after which they only grow larger. Yet in none of our marine reserves this has happened. Obviously something is holding them back: degradation. For the last sentence, refer to the urchin barrens myth which has been destroyed decisively.

Below Left: A close-up view of a leatherjacket amongst lush sponges  Upper left: The goatfish uses two barbels under the chin to search for worms and crustaceans in the sand. Below Right: At the Cape Rodney to Okakari Point (Leigh) Marine Reserve, snapper of  legal size are 10-20 times more abundant than on the unprotected coast. Hot spot?

Below Left: A crayfish peers at the camera. Upper Left: Kina can be collected from Mimiwhangata Marine Park under the current regulations. Below Right: Kingfish are a feature of Northland coastal waters. Photos from inside the MMP? We think not.

Below Left: Sponges and plankton-feeding demoiselles on the deep reef. Inside the MMP? Below Centre: An aggregation of goatfish near a reef. Below Right: A school of snapper peers at the camera at Cape Rodney to Okakari Point (Leigh) Marine Reserve.

From Left to right: 1. Paua numbers are likely to increase in a Marine Reserve at Mimiwhangata.  2. The spikes on the legs of large red crayfish are used to crack kina.  3. Marine Reserves are the only place where divers can regularly see snapper at close range.  4. A selection of sea life, which lives buried in the sandy seabed.  5. A  large sponge and soft coral on the deep reef.

Below Left: Large old snapper are the best breeders and are only protected in marine reserves. Upper Left: A nest of red crayfish at Leigh Marine Reserve Below Right: Hapuku, once common in shallow water, are now thought of as deepwater fish. They may return to the shallows in a marine reserve. Has this happened anywhere?

In the shallows, fringing the exposed reefs, one finds the strap weed Lessonia which indicates this area's similarity to places like the Poor Knights. The strap weed thrives in strong wave action.

Stunted tangle weed on colourful urchin barrens. The tangle weed cannot grow tall because it is not strong enough, but its thin woody base discourages urchins from eating it. Notice the Sandager's wrasse which is an indicator of warm, clear water.

Where the rocky shore is deep enough (10-15m) and bordered by shallow sand, urchins gather at its base after being swept off. Then they attack the kelp forest from below as well as from the top, resulting in barren zones wider than usual. This is not a sign of degradation.

Along a vertical wall, the usual fauna has disappeared, but just this year a crop of soft corals or deadman's fingers (Alcyonaria sp) popped up, their transparent polyps glowing in the blue light. Finding a crop of individuals of the same age while other age classes are absent, is a sign of decay.

Only in a few small places, dominated by shelter and strong currents, finds one remnants of what once lived here profusely and even these communities have changed already.

In sheltered places one finds the strongest indicators of decay, like this steep rock face smothered in sticky dust, which has killed all life except for some hardy cup corals. Note that the dust does not even show trails of grazers.

 
 
 

Proposed traditional management area In preparing this proposal, discussions were held with hapu representatives. Kaumatua and Kuia from the Mokau area (adjacent to the western end of the proposed Marine Reserve boundary) indicated a strong preference for having the area around Paparahi Point, which is currently within the Marine Park, excluded from the proposed Marine Reserve area.

The Department of Conservation has taken this advice in formulating the proposed boundaries (see attached map). The hapu view is that this area has always been intensively used for kaimoana harvesting, and in modern times has become especially important as a recreational, subsistence and customary fishing area for both the hapu and the wider community. It was argued that the shelter, easy access and strong significance of the traditional use of this location, meant that this area would be better managed under a system different to the Marine Reserve.

Some of the objectives identified by the hapu for management of this area were:

• restore the understanding and use of tikanga, (traditional rules and boundaries) for the management of this area
• create local on-the-water involvement and employment for the people of the hapu and community
• investigate the potential for aquaculture to take pressure off the harvesting of the natural reef system, and possibly to enhance the natural reef system
• restore the kelp forest community, paua, mussel and crayfish resources of the Paparahi Point area. What about kina?

Beyond the specific area of Paparahi Point and its reefs and islets, the hapu did not wish at this time to draw lines indicating the extent of the area they wished to focus on to develop traditional management practice. In their view the Paparahi Point area is simply one part of the entire rohe for which they are responsible as Kaitiaki. They also stated that they would be seeking to explore the extent to which provisions in the Fisheries Act could support their traditional management objectives, referring here to Mataitai and Taiapure areas as defined by fisheries regulations.

Notice how we'll end up with two different acts and two different bureaucracies managing the area? If it was all done under the Fisheries Act, it would be much simpler. The time has come to abolish the Marine Reserves Act altogether. It is an anomaly whose time has passed.

 
 

How would a Marine Reserve support kaitiakitanga? Respected Ngatiwai and Mokau Kaumatua, Houpeke Piripi, has declared a rahui tapu at Mimiwhangata and supports the use of the Marine Reserves Act 1971 to restore the area. Houpeke and the Te Au O Morunga Marine Farm Trust have also proposed an adjacent traditional management area (see enclosed map).

The hapu also saw it as an advantage to develop kaitiakitanga management of the Marine Reserve and of special areas surrounding the Marine Reserve identified by hapu and the Department of Conservation.
The Department of Conservation, in preparing this proposal, acknowledges the leadership and vision demonstrated by Houpeke and the other  Kaumatua and kuia involved in the investigation stage of this project. With their leadership and guidance, we will seek to take the kaupapa of this proposal to the wider tangata whenua community and Ngatiwai iwi.
Marine Reserves offer a mechanism for tangata whenua to be intimately involved in the long-term protection and recovery of special areas in their rohe. There are many concerns about the long-term impacts of increased fishing pressure on the marine environment. The Marine Reserve proposed at Mimiwhangata would create a refuge or nursery, where natural productivity could recover and support management efforts in the adjacent coastal areas.

The MRA1971 under which this proposal is sought, does not support kaitiakitanga. A marine park under the fisheries act would give the local communities a better and more flexible vehicle to manage their resources for the future.

Following the three-month submission period for this proposal document, the Department of Conservation will analyse the feedback received, conduct further discussion and consider scientific information about the area. Then a set of boundaries may be proposed in a formal application (Step Six) for a Marine Reserve or the proposal may be abandoned altogether. The public would have the opportunity to make submissions on the application (Step Seven), as part of the statutory process.
Following the application period, there are several steps where the Minister of Conservation examines objections to the application, makes a decision and seeks concurrence from other Ministers.
 
 
 

Key Questions
This document has described the way Marine Reserves restore marine environments. It provides information about Mimiwhangata and Marine Reserves, and an opportunity to discuss a Marine Reserve for Mimiwhangata.
The key questions are:

• How would the activities of different interest and user groups be affected if Mimiwhangata became a Marine Reserve?
• What is the compelling reason not to leave it as a marine park?
• What are the expected benefits of the Marine Reserve?
• What are its expected disadvantages and cost and lost opportunities to future generations?
• Where would Marine Reserve boundaries go?
• What is the compelling reason for making it bigger?
• What educational, research, cultural and recreational  opportunities would be created?
• What opportunities would be lost?
• Where would the economic profits go to?
• How would a Marine Reserve (or Park) be managed?
• How would the general public be involved?
• How would the local fishermen be involved?
• How would local tangata whenua be involved? How would they benefit? How would kaitiakitanga be enhanced?

What should we do now?
This proposal is open for public submissions.
 
 

If an application is made, members of the public then have two months, from the time the application is notified, to make submissions. The Department is required to consider concerns expressed in submissions. The Minister of Conservation will make the final decision on the application which also requires concurrence from the Ministers of Fisheries and Transport.

(4) Denny C.M.&Babcock R.C.(2002).Fish survey of the Mimiwhangata Marine Park, Northland. Report to the Department of Conservation. Leigh Marine Laboratory.
(5) Grace R.V.&Kerr V.C.(2003). A marine species list for Mimiwhangata 1973-2004. Report to Department of Conservation, Northland Conservancy.
(6) Usmar N.R., Denny C.M., Shears N.T.&R.C.Babcock (2003). Mimiwhangata Marine Park Monitoring Report 2003. Report to Department of Conservation, Leigh Marine Laboratory, University of Auckland.
(7) Shears N.T.&Babcock R.C.(2002). Marine reserves demonstrate top-down control of community structure on temperate reefs. Oecologia 132:131-142
(8) Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, 2002. The Science of Marine Reserves. http://www.piscoweb.org
(9) Department of Conservation et.al., 2000. New Zealand biodiversity strategy. NZ Govt Press. , 2000
(10) Kerr V.C.&Grace R.V.(2002). Mimiwhangata Deep Reef Survey Draft Report 2002. A report to the Department of Conservation.
(11) Kerr V.C.&Grace R.V.(2004). Habitat investigations of Mimiwhangata. Report in progress.
(12) Dart J., Drey B.&R.Grace (1984). Mimiwhangata Marine Park:Environmental Impact report. Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Board.
(13) Denny C M & Babcock R C (2004). Do partial marine reserves protect reef fish assemblages? Biological Conservation 1 Vol 116.
(14) Denny C M, Willis T J, Babcock R C (2003) Effects of Poor Knights Islands marine reserve on demersal fish populations. DSIS 142, DoC.
(15) Williis T J, Millar R B, Babcock R C, Tolimieri N (2003) Burdens of evidence and the benefits of marine reserves: putting Descartes before des horse? Environmental Conservation 30:97-103.
(16) Willis T J, Millar R B, Babcock R C (2003): Protection of exploited fish in temperate regions:  high density and biomass of snapper Pagrus auratus (Sparidae) in northern New Zealand marine reserves.  Journal of Applied Ecology (2003) 40.