Do we start fixing the Gulf, or should we keep arguing?
The ecology of the Hauraki Gulf is broken, because the rules governing how we interact with it are broken. Today we have the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix it.
Nearly a decade of work by dozens of committed people from all backgrounds has landed us at a decisive moment—contemplating a proposal that has broad agreement, the support of government and the ability to halt the decline of the Hauraki Gulf.
Do we throw it away because it’s not perfect? Or do we use it as a springboard to improve outcomes for one of the greatest ecosystems on Earth?
How did we arrive at the Sea Change proposal?
Some eight years ago, authorities, mana whenua, scientists, recreational fishers, commercial fishers and other stakeholders came together to draft a monumental plan to fix the foundering Hauraki Gulf. Successive State of the Gulf reports had painted a picture of continuous decline since the formation of the Marine Park, and it was time to do something about it.
The problems were well-documented—destructive fishing methods, commercial and recreational take, sedimentation and invasive species, among other issues. There was no silver bullet. What was needed was a ‘marine spatial plan’ that would set out who could do what, where, and how.
Discussions started in late 2013. It was an arduous process, led by a diverse 14-member Stakeholder Working Group. Together they wrestled long and hard with the facts, rights and responsibilities, all parties pushing and pulling to find a balance they could live with. It took three and a half years.
In May 2017, the first marine spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf was released. The 312-page document was called Sea Change—or Tai Timu Tai Pari, literally; from low tide to high tide. It made over 180 proposals for the Gulf and its catchments across land, freshwater and marine domains.
No one suggested that it was perfect, or even necessarily adequate to meet the challenge. But it had the support of everyone, and would make a substantial change to how all parties interacted with the gulf.
Councils got busy taking forward the parts on land-based impacts like sewerage overflows. But at central government it sat on the desks of the Minister of Conservation and Minister of Fisheries for two years… then went for review to a Ministerial Advisory Committee. There was more pushing and pulling, prodding and adjustments… then a report in September 2020. Then ministers got stuck in and tweaked it a little more.
Finally in June 2021 the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries David Parker announced Revitalising The Gulf, a 144-page document that outlined the intent of Sea Change and the response of government.
I don’t want to appear flippant in this potted history. It was ponderous, but it was important. Important because the reason that the gulf is in ecological collapse is because everyone plays by the rules, but the rules are broken.
The rules are broken because they are not connected. Commercial catch of snapper, for instance, is measured across a Fisheries Management Area that extends 200 nautical miles from the coast, from North Cape to near East Cape, while the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park extends only 12 nautical miles along a fraction of that coastline. And the rules are not spatial—you can catch almost whatever you like almost where ever you like.
Revitalising The Gulf aimed to change all that—protecting the most vulnerable and productive sites, restricting destructive fishing methods, banning others. It includes a number of High Protection Areas where all extraction is outlawed (apart from limited customary take), a number of Seafloor Protection Areas where bottom-contact fishing methods are banned, as well as a slew of new limitations on commercial fishing, including corridors where they may use trawl gear.
Proposed Hauraki Gulf Spatial Plan, Revitalising The Gulf
But like Sea Change, Revitalising The Gulf is a negotiated document. The government took the advice from stakeholders, connected it with other instruments of state and made it statutory, enforceable and legally binding.
So is this a problem, or an opportunity?
Every party involved in the process has found something in the proposal to criticise. Most say it doesn’t go far enough. Everyone says allowing commercial fishers to continue using destructive fishing methods—such as bottom trawling and scallop dredging—in a national park of the sea is unforgivable… except for those commercial interests.
Both NZSFC and Legasea—who were involved in the drafting of Sea Change—have mounted a number of legitimate criticisms which can be found in their submission to the Hauraki Gulf Forum.
Revitalising The Gulf is compromised, but it is not without value, and offers a unique opportunity. All the parties are engaged and have found some common ground, and government ministries are on board. Everyone is at the table.
Even as written it would be a game-changer for the ecology of the region and the quality of the fishery itself. Accepting it and then working with government to deal with the overhanging concerns would be more constructive and have a better outcome than rejecting it, whatever its failings.
It all comes down to the central question, posed in the headline; do we start fixing the Gulf, or should we keep arguing?
What does a solution look like?
So if Revitalising The Gulf is the starting position, all parties should commit to some constructive changes:
1. Meaningfully address the impact of the commercial sector. Recreational fishers welcome new measures to fix the Hauraki Gulf. However commercial fishers may continue to use destructive fishing methods such as bottom trawling, and may even be able to expand dredging operations in some instances. This is inconsistent, indefensible and cynical. GoodFishing supports other agencies—including the Hauraki Gulf Forum, NZSFC and Legasea—in calling for a total ban on bottom contact fishing methods within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, as well as a review of the TAC (total allowable catch) in the park with a view to creating a separate FMA (fisheries management area) for this important area that differs so greatly from the wide SNA1 FMA. As drafted, any reduction in catch from rec fishos would naturally increase the total allowable commercial catch, which is unreasonable and must change.
2. Acknowledge and address the impact of displaced fishing pressure. The proposed marine protected areas in the new spatial plan will displace fishing effort, potentially harming vulnerable reefs in the vicinity of new protected areas. While this may be compensated with higher productivity within the protected areas in the fullness of time, we don’t know how other areas will respond to additional pressure. Government must consider how this additional pressure will be managed.
3. Properly consider the potential for strategic release areas as a conservation management tool. GoodFishing would like the government to consider strategic release as a valid tool for conservation purposes—where important or vulnerable species or sizes are released by fishers rather than kept. A recent literature review has found less than 4% mortality in waters less than 20 metres deep for snapper, and almost zero mortality for kingfish. This may have value as a temporary measure during spawning, as buffer zones around HPAs or in vulnerable ecosystems where full closure is not yet necessary. Creating room for this measure within the new legislation may be valuable in future.
4. Many of us are keen to be part of the solution—talk to us. There is a rapidly growing constituency of recreational fishos interested in good ecological outcomes alongside the sustainability of their fishery. We would like to be part of the discussion around how policies are framed.
For all its flaws, Revitalising The Gulf might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build on a policy framework that has both the support of government and the wider community. It should be accepted and improved rather than dumped for being imperfect or compromised.
Continuing to argue over the perfect solution only stands in the way of a good solution. We don’t have time to waste. Let’s move forwards.
