1 GENERAL ISSUES During discussions over a period of years, several issues both for and against a proposed marine reserve were noted.

Transcription

1 Appendix 3 ADDRESSING ISSUES 1 GENERAL ISSUES ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONSES TO PUBLICATIONS: Discussion Pamphlet Have Your Say Information accompanying survey Have Your Say, July 1999 April Observational Survey I. Shore Survey Submissions to the Draft Application September Observational Survey II. Shore and Marine Survey ; MARINE FORUM GENERAL ISSUES During discussions over a period of years, several issues both for and against a proposed marine reserve were noted. For: a. Marine Reserve would simplify the complex management, giving more protection to all marine life, not just target species. b. Seal Rocks was visible proof of the ability of an area to recover when it was designated virtually no-take. c. Marine Reserves provide spillover to the surrounding customary, recreational and commercial fishery. d. Recreational fishing exerts greater pressure than in 1990 from more technological equipment and greater numbers of fishers. e. Marine Reserves would enhance customary fishing by being alongside Mataitai or Taiapure. Against: a. Some respondents deem the status quo as satisfactory; fisheries regulations are less restrictive than Marine Reserves. b. Against the no-take principle because it is against customary or civil rights c. Fishermen appreciated the shelter of the islands. d. Surfcasting is popular along Back Beach to the Tapuae. e. Recreational fishermen felt this was the only are a in which they could fish free from competition from commercial fishers. f. Commercial fishers (through a Cra 9 spokesperson) thought it would impact negatively upon their catch because of reduced spatial area. g. In perpetuity seems to breach the Treaty by preventing sustainable utilisation of resources. (See amendment, Review Period suggested by this Application.) Specific concern: Overlapping legislation involving the Ministry of Fisheries, The Ministry of Conservation and Taranaki Regional Council, has itself created difficulties in the consultation process. Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 1

2 2 ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONSES TO PUBLICATIONS: 2.1 DISCUSSION PAMPHLET HAVE YOUR SAY. The Ngā Motu Marine Reserve Society Incorporated published 1,000 Discussion Pamphlets (see Section 4 of this Appendix) with Have Your Say surveys attached. The Midweek newspaper, circulation 26,000, printed an article and map (of Option 7) with clip-out response coupon. See section 5.8 of the Application document. Responses: The survey results were independently analysed by a Massey University student, Emma Doherty. Returns showed significant public support, and that recreational fishermen favoured the status quo. The largest proportion of respondents used the area for non-extractive activities (walking, viewing, picnicking, surfing, swimming, yachting etc.). Table 1. Non-extractive land-based Surf /swim yachting/ boating Shellfish gathering surfcasting dive fishing 33.33% 25.40% 6.35% 1.06% 6.35% 11.11% 16.40% Totals Non-extractive = 65.08% Extractive = 34.92% (including all diving, as most divers will take spiny lobster). Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 2

3 number 'Have your say" Graphical interpretation of discussion pamphlet Have Your Say Do support principle 1. Do not 2. Support area indicated 2. No 3. Do use area 3.Don't Non extractive land-based Shellfish gathering surfcasting dive surf/swim 48 yachting/boating fish 31 Include all SLIMPA incl. other areas in Not SW extn buffer around reserve 6 Detail of responses: Total 142 persons with an opinion on Marine Reserves. (1 person no opinion ) 123 do support principle, = 86.6%. 19 respondents did not support principle of marine reserves = 13.4% 107 of these support the area indicated = 75.35%. 18 wanted all of SLIMPA included = 13% Of the 92 who use the area (64.7% of all respondents) 56 are non-extractive land-based users, 25 of whom also surf/swim. 41 surf/swim 14 fished and are obviously willing to forego this pleasure (15% of the 92 users) 7 wanted all of SLIMPA to be included, OR wished other areas to be included, 11. (Extended area = total 18 requests = 13% wanted all of SLIMPA included) 0 opposed the South-West extension. 3 respondents suggested a buffer zone against commercial fishermen, or for recreational fishing around reserve areas. 2 of them were involved in extractive pastimes other than fishing. 1 person supports the MR principles, but does not comment on the proposed area, although uses it for surfcasting, surf/swimming and diving. 34 respondents did not support a marine reserve in the proposed area, 23.9%, but 14 of these support the principle of marine reserves = 10% 13 use the area = 9% 5 are surfcasters and not fishermen. 5 are fishermen, and also yacht/boat, surf/swim and dive. 3 are non extractive land-users. Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 3

4 2 wish a buffer zone of some type to prevent commercial fishing, or allow hand line fishing. 19 respondents did not support principle of marine reserves = 13.4% 15 use the area = 11% 10 fish, while 2 of the user/fishers also swim /surf, and 4 of the user/fishers also dive. 2 surfcast only. 2 of those have only non-extractive land-based use. The Have Your Say survey resulted in 23.9% (34 people) opposed to the proposed area (Option 7). Those who gave negative reasons put forward the following; 10 said, Keep the SLIMPA for recreational fishing / Marine Parks are more acceptable /put Marine Reserves in isolated places. 2 said that islands give shelter and safety for small boats 4 wanted a different area within the proposed boundaries. 2 wanted a different area outside the proposed boundaries to retain their surfcasting patch. 1 said, Control the seal numbers. The Ngã Motu Marine Reserve Society s response: The impact of a Marine Reserve on these respondents would be lessened because: recreational fishing would be allowed in many other nearby places. the two largest islands closest to the Port are available for shelter for small boats. surfcasting would still be possible close by. culling seals is not a lawful practice. Discussion of Have Your Say. A large majority of respondents, 86.6%, supported the principle of marine reserves, with three-quarters supporting the area indicated in Option 7, part of SLIMPA and the South-West Extension. 65% of respondents used the area, and supported a marine reserve in the area. Of these, 15% fished in the area, and were willing to forgo that leisure. 11% of the respondents used the area and did not support a marine reserve in the area. The results are in line with research from Coromandel by Wolfenden et al. (1994), who ranked responses from randomly selected ratepayers, and found a high level of support (93.8%) for marine reserves. They concluded that opposers to marine reserves desired more information. Generally, all respondents wanted more advice on the possible short-term and long-term positive and negative effects on human and marine communities, and providing only positive information about marine reserves was regarded as misleading. Reference: Wolfenden, J., Cram, F. and Kirkwood, B., Marine Reserves in New Zealand: A Survey of Community Reactions, Ocean and Coastal Management, 25: Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 4

5 INFORMATION ACCOMPANYING SURVEY HAVE YOUR SAY, JULY 1999 APRIL 2000 Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 5

6 Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 6

7 2.2 OBSERVATIONAL SURVEY I. SHORE SURVEY A survey (previously unpublished) of the use at peak holiday time in 1999/2000 was conducted by beach walks between Tapuae Stream and Back Beach dur ing the last week of December 1999 and first week of January The boats observed were only those seen from beach level. See Table 1 below. Table 1. Activity Percentage Sun bathing / sitting walking Other (such as paragliding) 5.79 swimming 8.57 surfing sailing (boats) 3.02 Non-extractive use diving 1.51 fishing offshore (boats) 9.07 fishing onshore 6.80 Presumed extractive use Discussion: This survey could not show what proportion of all boat-based recreation occurred within the area of the proposed marine reserve. This information was considered to be a necessity for baseline information assessing the impact on biodiversity. The Society determined to do a fuller recreational use survey, and after assessing the submissions to the Draft Application (see below), determined those parameters necessary to determine patterns of use. 2.3 SUBMISSIONS TO THE DRAFT APPLICATION SEPTEMBER An independent verification of the analysis of responses was done by a Justice of the Peace, Harvey Hingston. The Society s considerations are given in italics below the synopsis of each issue. Issues supporting the proposal. 52 responses. i Maintain and improve biodiversity. Marine reserves provide spillover and secure refuges for marine life. See Scientific papers cited in References and Bibliography. ii. iii. iv. Benefits to recreation. See Social Impacts of Marine reserves in New Zealand. Taylor & Buckenham Area becomes more attractive to visitors. Scientific and education opportunities. The MR Act encourages protection to enable scientific research. Other marine reserves have proven educational benefits. Recommend continued dialogue with tangata whenua and suggest 25 -year generational review. The Society accepts this point. Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 7

8 Issues raised in opposition. 67 responses. i. Concern that present recreational fishing activities would be restricted. All of these activities could continue in adjacent areas. See Recreational Use Survey 2.4. ii. The area is a shelter for fishing with small boats. Moturoa & Ngã Mahanga, the 2 largest islands, are available for sheltered fishing because they are outside the proposed area. See Recreational Use Survey 2.4. iii. iv. Surfcasters would loose an area close to New Plymouth and surfcasting is low impact. Other areas in the vicinity are available, and current use by surfcasters is not great. See Recreational Use Survey The SLIMPA is sufficient protection and firmly supported. A marine reserve offers greater protection than SLIMPA for areas of high conservation value and would act as a nursery for all marine life. Until data on the impacts of recreational fishing are known it is wise to follow the precautionary principle. v. Ngati Tairi and Ngati Te Whiti Ahi Kaa wanted customary take for cultural purposes. This is against the principles of the MR Act. Our view is that a 25 year generational review is preferable to the in perpetuity clause. vi. vii. One criticism was that for a network system, several options should be offered, with representative and replicated areas, that would all be as equally representative of the Taranaki marine regions (i.e. deep or shallow, sheltered or exposed). The committee agrees Concern that seals consumed more fish than people, which in turn would put pressure on the fishery. Studies from other areas do not support this contention. Local research indicates a relatively stable seal population. Differences in reef fi sh populations between the Conservation Area and the rest of SLIMPA may be ascribed to the pressures of recreational fishing targeting certain species rather than the fishing pressure of seals,which feed almost entirely on deep sea species not targeted by recreational fishers (Miller, R. and Williams, B., 2003). Other local areas suggested as suitable. 1. All of SLIMPA should be included in Option Extend Conservation Area to 900m as a buffer zone. 3. SLIMPA extension to Oakura. Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 8

9 percentage 2.4 OBSERVATIONAL SURVEY II. SHORE AND MARINE SURVEY ; Observations of marine and shore-based recreation were made from several vantage points along the shore, on as many days in the sample period as possible, using judgment sampling rather than random sampling, as randomly selected days frequently coincided with unpleasant weather conditions. The survey accumulated 34 boat observations in , and 23 observations in , over comparable summer periods. Boat location was noted using the marine reserve proposal boundaries Option 7. The activity of boats was observed with binoculars, and recorded on a map. High levels of boat activity were strongly related to good weather. Weekends also encouraged recreation. The shore-based recreation had 29 observations made in , and 23 in , looking along the shore from the power station, and along Back Beach, as far as could be seen with binoculars. Marine-based recreation Observations: observations= observations=23 boat trailers at ramp boats visible from land boats in area of proposed MR boats in SLIMPA boats in MR, in SLIMPA boats outside MR, in SLIMPA The extractive use in the proposed marine reserve area appears to be low; with only 2% of all boats fishing and diving in the proposed reserve area in , and 5% of all boats in [Graph 1]. Long-line buoys and cray-pots could not be counted, but were observed over the entire area. Graph 1 Activity in SLIMPA and proposed reserve obs= obs= obs=23 %of boats in the proposed reserve % of boats fishing in proposed MR % diving in proposed MR obs=34 Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 9

10 The portion of SLIMPA outside the proposed reserve (Saddleback Island and Moturoa Island) is more popular than the portion of SLIMPA in the proposed marine reserve area. The differences are statistically significant at a 99% level of confidence. In , 6% of all boats were in the Saddleback/Moturoa area of SLIMPA and 3% were in the proposed marine reserve portion of SLIMPA. In , 10% of all boats were in the Saddleback/Moturoa area of SLIMPA while 8% were in the marine reserve portion of SLIMPA [Graph 2]. Graph 2 Destination of boats obs= obs=23 numbers boat trailers at ramp boats visible from land boats in area of proposed MR boats in SLIMPA boats in MR, in SLIMPA obs= obs=34 Shore-based recreation: Almost all of the land based recreation was non-extractive, 96.6% in , and 99.3% in Sitting, walking (often with dogs), sunbathing, and surfing were the most popular activities [Table 1]. Table 1 Observation days Totals TOTALS Combined data Sugar Loaf lookouts Herekawe Total cars Sun bathing/sitting in cars walking + dogs swimming surfing camping Other (paraglider/climbing) surfcasting beach/round rock snorkelling Total recreation visible reserve Total non extractive reserve Total extractive reserve area Total surfcasting Power Station Percentage extractive reserve Percentage non-extractive reserve Total Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 10

11 number Surfcasters comprised 3% of shore-based users observed in the reserve area in , dropping to only 0.5% in , probably due to the unsuitable weather during that summer. The observations showed greater numbers of cars and visitors in the second year [Table 1] and an increase in shore based recreational use of the area [Graph 3]. Graph 3 Shore-based recreation Totals obs=29 Totals obs= Sun bathing/sitting in cars walking + dogs swimming surfing camping Other (paraglider/climbing) surfcasting beach/islands snorkelling Discussion The observations made of recreational activity indicate the greatest use of the proposed marine reserve area is non-extractive, and shore-based. The numbers of these users had risen in the second year. The marine recreational use is significantly less in the area proposed as a marine reserve than elsewhere, although the extractive pressure from longlines and cray-pots could not be ascertained. The recreational activity depended on many circumstantial variables, the time of day, day of the week and the weather. Reference: Smith, E.S. (in preparation). Recreational Use Survey, Ngā Motu, Taranaki, Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 11

12 3. MARINE FORUM A marine forum was held in November 2003 with Dr Ken Grange and Mr Chris Turver from the Kapiti Marine Reserve Management Committee. The session was held with invited key stakeholders to discuss their concerns and covered: The choice of boundaries: It was noted that based on experience, straight line boundaries, sensible landmarks, and simplicity, assisted user understanding and compliance. The Society was advised to examine the boundaries and re-draw them. Compliance issue: Voluntary compliance is high once understanding is there, and when the marine reserve is seen as a benefit there will be few prosecutions or confiscations. Size: Bigger is generally better giving greater habitat, but the size depends upon the species or habitat it is designed to protect. Local surfcasters opposed marine reserves because of the national scale of the proposals, forcing people to go to unsafe spots to fish. They believed that recreational fishers were not damaging the ecosystem, and fisheries regulations are sufficient. In addition, people opposing the marine reserve contended that since the local coast is wild, a reserve will not benefit the biota, and not be attractive to visitors. The discussion determined that a long term view is required, considering what the next generations will inherit. Advice was to be aware of the problems with fisheries management, that fishing generally targets predatory fish creating an ecological imbalance, and there is a need to restore ecosystems. Recreational fishers commented that they have seen other marine reserves and the benefits in those, but wished to maintain the status quo in SLIMPA, where the existing regulations have helped, with Seal Rocks Conservation Area showin g the greatest improvement. Marine protection, but not reserves, is supported. Several people indicated that they saw no reason to change the status of the area. During discussion, it was recognised that a marine reserve in this site may face issues that are not yet foreseen, but given that consents, e.g. for discharges to the sea, are granted and monitored under the Resource Management Act, the marine reserve should not affect the granting of these, or vice versa. Seals perceived as a threat to fishermen: There was some concern that the seal population is growing, and a marine reserve will encourage the trend. The Department of Conservation pointed to local research indicating a stable population, and others concurred that this is a haul -out area, the seals feed offshore on deep water species, and any increase in numbers is likely to be the result of improved ecosystem balance. Representatives from tangata whenua and scientists agreed that we must all take a long term view, be mindful of concerns expressed at the forum, and seek compromises. In the evening a public meeting The Kapiti Experience was held in the NPDC chambers, so that questions could be put to Dr Grange and Mr Turver about their experiences, and hear their advice. A questionnaire, Seeking Common Ground was distributed to attendees at both meetings, and the responses noted. See over. Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 12

13 SEEKING COMMON GROUND November 6th 2003 Feedback on the Marine Forum with Ken Grange and Chris Turver Please indicate if you agree, or comment. 1. I support the principle of no-take marine reserves. 2. I agree that no-take marine reserves on the Taranaki coast will have benefits for marine biodiversity and allow scientific comparison of fished and unfished areas. 3. A marine reserve near New Plymouth would be a unique asset to the community. 4. I support the Nga Motu Marine Reserve Society in their present proposal (see map below) 5. I have a different position. (Please describe) Name, and contact address: Please return your response to: Nga Motu Marine Reserve Discussion Post Office Counter Egmont Village Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 13

14 Results of the questionnaire for the Forum, Seeking common ground, November 6 th given out, 10 returned Question 1: I support the principle of no-take marine reserves 8 support principle of no-take reserves 1 does not support, 1 abstained Question 2: I agree that no-take marine reserves on the Taranaki coast will have benefits for marine biodiversity and allow scientific comparison of fished and unfished areas. 9 agreed that no take reserves benefit biodiversity and allow scientific comparison of fished & unfished areas (1 disagreed) Question 3: A marine reserve near New Plymouth would be a unique asset to the community. 6 agreed that a marine reserve near New Plymouth would be a unique asset to the community 3 disagreed Question 4: I support the Nga Motu Marine Reserve Society in their present proposal (see map below) 5 supported the present proposal, 1of whom wanted t he whole of SLIMPA included. 3 did not support the present proposal and wanted SLIMPA excluded, 1 did not support because surfcasters should be allowed 200 metres along the shore of the reserve area as a fishing area close to the city. 1 thought a compromise would be to give the entire proposed area marine park status. Question 5: I have a different position. (Please describe) DOW Agro sciences support reserve provides consent to discharge to the Herekawa is not altered. SLIMPA is unique and the community are proud of it Strongly oppose change in status of SLIMPA Appendix 3 Tapuae Marine Reserve Application 14