Submission on Review of sustainability measures for spiny rock lobster (CRA2) for 2024/25

An adult red rock lobster, aka ‘crayfish’ or ‘kōura’  (Credit: John McKoy, NIWA)

Introduction

1. This is a submission by the Aotea Great Barrier Environmental Trust (AGBET) on proposed changes to the harvest of rock lobster in Quota Management Area (QMA) CRA2 for 2025.

2. AGBET is a registered charitable trust whose mission is to “Work with Aotea’s mana whenua and community to protect biodiversity, re-introduce lost species, eradicate rats and feral cats, and grow a sustainable, ecology-based economy.”

3. AGBET has an extensive history of advocating for protection of the terrestrial and marine environment at Aotea Great Barrier Island.

4. A core underlying value of AGBET is to use robust evidence-based data in our assessment of the state of the environment and in our advocacy for ecosystem restoration and protection.  

5. Accurate stock estimates of rock lobster / kōura populations within CRA2 is critical for sustainable management of this fishery. The recommendations in this review are predicated on a methodology used by Fisheries NZ that estimates there has been a dramatic recovery in kõura stock since the total allowable catch (TAC) was reduced in 2018. That conclusion is based on a modelling methodology that estimates the catch per unit effort (CPUE) based on biomass of kōura per potlift. This may not reflect actual abundance.

6. Independent studies based on diver-based surveys that compare stock in marine protection areas (MPA) versus fished locations conclude that the Fisheries NZ modelling approach severely overestimates recovery of kōura stock within CRA2. Qualitative observations by environmental organisations and recreational divers across the Hauraki Gulf support this conclusion.  

Background: The Hauraki Gulf

1. The Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana is a taonga for Aotearoa, distinguished by its unique features and values. It is of significant historical and cultural importance for tangata whenua. With around 2 million people living on the shores of the Gulf it is one of the most heavily utilized marine areas in New Zealand. It is the seabird capital of the world and home to a resident population of tohorā / Bryde’s whale. 

2. But climate change and human activity – on both land and sea - have taken a heavy toll on the health of the Gulf, which is currently described as on the edge of ‘ecological collapse’ with declining water quality, habitat loss and overfishing, , The kelp forests that sustain fish stocks and biodiversity within the Gulf are in serious decline, principally through kina predation, , and that has a huge flow on effect on the marine life within the Gulf. The collapse of seabird populations within the Gulf are one of the best indicators of the poor ecological state of health of the Gulf.  

3. It is against this background that we have reviewed the Discussion Paper on proposed options around the future harvest of rock lobster / Kōura papatea (Jasus edwardsii) within CRA2, noting that the Hauraki Gulf is a significant component of this fishery. 

4. In particular, our focus is on the implications of the management options proposed and how they might impact on the ecological health of the coastal waters around Aotea / Great Barrier island.

Proposed biomass management targets 

1. Of the options proposed in this review AGBET supports a management biomass target greater than 3.5x BR (where BR is the Biomass reference target).

2. We have opted for this target rather than the Fisheries NZ preferred option of 2.5x BR because:

• Independent studies involving diver-based surveys question the accuracy of the methodology used by Fisheries NZ in estimating kōura stock within CRA2.

• The Fisheries NZ modelling methodology estimates catch per unit effort (CPUE) based on biomass of kōura per potlift. No independent ‘in ocean’ methodology is used to support the accuracy of this modelling approach. It is not possible to make ecological inferences using fishery-dependent data alone.

• The independent studies compare stock in 3 marine protection areas (MPA) versus 6 fished areas across the Hauraki Gulf and conclude that the Fisheries NZ modelling approach severely overestimates recovery of kōura stock within CRA2.

• They found that the biomass at fished locations was <10% of that in reserves and there was little evidence for stock recovery within CRA2 since the catch reductions made in 2018. These diver directed surveys allow a direct comparison of number, size and biomass of individual kōura at fished and unfished sites and take into account the highly variable ocean dynamics. 

• Qualitative diver-based observations by marine environmental organisations and recreational divers across the Hauraki Gulf do not support the conclusion by Fisheries NZ that there has been a dramatic recovery in the kōura stock. 

Total allowable catch (TAC) options

1. AGBET supports Option A1: retention of the current settings. We prefer this option as

•  there is considerable uncertainty as to whether there has really been a recovery of the fishery stock since the adjusted take was reduced in 2018.

• Independent diver-based surveys (see above) do not support a recovery of the magnitude proposed in this paper. 

• The consequences of closure of the inner Hauraki Gulf to both commercial and recreational rock lobster harvest will change the impacts on the remainder of the CRA2 fishery. Retention of the current settings may have considerably greater impact on the areas outside the inner Gulf than are already occurring. 

• If the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill is passed 12 additional High Protection Areas (HPAs) will be added to the current 8 marine reserves within CRA2 where there is a policy of no-take.

• It is a high-risk strategy to increase the take while also making major adjustments to the areas from which commercial and recreational kõura harvest can occur.

Proposed spatial management measures

1. AGBET supports option B2 of closing the inner Hauraki Gulf to all commercial and recreational rock lobster fishing.

2. We support this option as rock lobster within the inner Gulf are close to being functionally extinct. It is an indictment of the previous CRA2 management measures that this part of the Gulf is now in such a dire state. Iwi have become so concerned they have taken independent action as exemplified by the successful Ngāti Paoa application for a section 186A temporary closure around Waiheke Island. The very small populations of rock lobster within the inner Gulf now make commercial rock lobster fishing within this area unviable. 

3. The status quo (option B1) is not acceptable as it will allow ongoing recreational harvest, further depleting already low stocks and lead to total collapse of the population in this area.

4. However, closure of the inner Gulf, combined with a proposed increase in the total available commercial catch (TACC), will lead to huge pressure on the outer Gulf, and in particular at Aotea.

Pressure on Aotea coastline

1. Besides the potential impact of commercial fishing, the impact of recreational fishing on rock lobster around Aotea is also likely to increase.

2.  It is estimated that there are over 100,000 recreational vessels in and around Auckland. While only a fraction of these boats come out to Aotea, the number of vessels visiting the island, especially over summer is still in the thousands, and many of these engage in fishing activities. Charter boats with divers add to that pressure, and can quickly result in depletion of kōura and other fish stocks from popular dive locations.

3. Surveillance and enforcement of fishing regulations at Aotea by Fisheries NZ is sporadic at best.

4. While kōura stock did recover a little in Tryphena, Okupe and Whangaparapara harbours when anchoring bans were imposed as part of the conditions of the controlled area notices (CAN) set up across this section of the west coast of Aotea following the identification of the highly invasive exotic seaweed, caulerpa (C. brachypus and C. parvifolia) in July 2021, that increase was short lived. Once the ban on diving was lifted when the CAN was renewed in November 2023, stocks of rock lobster decreased rapidly from the pressure of recreational divers. 

5. The issuing of permits for crayfishing at Aotea, including within the CAN, in 2023, added further pressure on the rock lobster stocks at Aotea.

6. It is important to recognize that tangata whenua and the community of Aotea rely on the moana as a source of kai.

7. Therefore, management of the rock lobster stocks on Aotea must take into account the needs of the local community and place their rights ahead of those of visitors from off the island who fish on a recreational basis and are not dependent on the moana for kai.

The Ahu Moana Vision

1. AGBET strongly supports a vision of community management of local marine ecosystems.

2. This is possible without legislative change through section 11 of the Fisheries Act (1993).

3. We support an island led management structure as captured by the vision of the Ahu Moana pilot. This is a concept that was developed as part of the Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari / Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan in 2017, and is one of the core elements of the Government’s 2021 ‘Revitalise the Gulf Strategy’. 

4. Ahu Moana, which sits within the Pou Moana of Ngāti Rehu Ngātiwai Ko Aotea Trust, has now been operating for three years (since October 2022) providing a model for mana whenua and community working together to observe, record and better understand the local ocean ecosystems. The regular surveys by Ahu Moana, using hauora moana methodology, provide a continuous record of the dynamics of the local ocean ecosystems, which is a richer and more comprehensive record of what is going on in the ocean than assessing stock using models based on catch data. 

Conclusion

1. We support closure of the inner Hauraki Gulf to both commercial and recreational fishing for kōura but in doing so highlight the likely flow on negative effects, and the impact they will have on the ecological health of the Aotea fishery. To mitigate those effects we recommend the establishment of a local management model for Aotea that incorporates the vision of the Ahu Moana pilot. Such an approach will not require a legislative change.

2. We are seriously concerned at the potential flaws in the model used by Fisheries NZ to estimate current and future rock lobster stock within CRA2 and the uncertainty that generates in the quality of the recommendations made within this report. 

3. We therefore recommend a conservative management approach that in the short term prevents a further decline of the ecological health within CRA2 and in the longer term allows the Gulf to ‘heal’ to ensure future generations enjoy both the ecological and economic benefits.

Fast Track Approvals Bill

Petrels and Dolphins off Aotea (Credit: Far Out Ocean Collective)

Introduction

Aotea Great Barrier Environmental Trust (AGBET) thanks the Environment Select Committee for the opportunity to make a submission on the Fast-Track Approvals Bill (Bill).  AGBET is a not-for-profit organisation that works with Aotea’s (Great Barrier Island) mana whenua and community to protect our island’s biodiversity, reintroduce lost species, eradicate rats and feral cats, and grow a sustainable, ecology-based economy.  Our values as a Trust are to be a voice for biodiversity, foster open communication and encourage evidenced-based environmental discussion – with integrity, respect for mana whenua, commitment, innovation, trust and inclusivity.

AGBET strongly opposes the Bill.  The draft legislation is anti-democratic, anti-transparency and creates vulnerability to corruption.  It lacks any semblance of environmental protection, and in fact, removes existing protections.

Aotea | Great Barrier Island

Aotea | Great Barrier Island is unique ecologically and almost all of us who live here value that status either partly or wholeheartedly.  The same applies to most of our visitors from near and far.  The history of exploitation of the resources of Great Barrier Island by our ancestors serves as an important background to the need to reconsider many of the provisions of the proposed Fast Track Approvals Bill.  It is less than 100 years since the cessation of the destructive industries of mining, logging, and whaling on our island; each of those relatively brief but violent assaults on the island teaches us a lesson about the need to tread with caution when seeking to gain wealth by harvesting natural resources.  For example, logging in the late 19th century, but even more so in the early 20th century, was undertaken without any consideration of the environmental consequences, or the sustainability of the exercise.  

There was brief consideration of sustainable forestry practices in the later 19th century, following European experience, but this was rejected.  To be sure, wealth was generated from the massive quantity of kauri timber extracted, but it was enormously wasteful and destructive of the magnificent forests which existed on the island, and of the land on which those trees grew.  Recovery from that particularly brutal extraction will take hundreds of years.  Similarly, mining was brief but very destructive and generated very little wealth.  We were appalled at the relatively recent proposal to resume mining on Te Ahumata (on Department of Conservation land), and as a consequence of the extensive public reaction to that ill-conceived and poorly researched and documented proposal, Aotea/Great Barrier Island was gazetted (by the previous National government) as a Conservation Park.  To think that the half-baked mining proposal could in fact resurface under this new legislation is a truly devastating prospect.

Why AGBET opposes the Bill

1. The Bill is not about streamlining process, it is about circumnavigating environmental considerations: it purports to be a fast-tracked legal framework but it is not, it is an environmental destruction Bill that will overthrow almost all of the country’s environmental protections that have been established over the last four decades.  

2. The Bill bears no resemblance to existing fast track processes: it places excessive and unfettered powers to approve projects in the hands of development Ministers.  The advisory panels seem to be designed to limit public input and their timeframe for reporting is enormously constrained - given that their recommendations can be simply ignored by the deciding Minister(s) it is rather hard to see what their point is.

3. It excludes public participation: the Government’s objectives, as embodied in the Bill, are to exclude community voices and to over-ride the general law.  Participatory principles have underpinned environmental management in Aotearoa for decades.  This is especially significant as the Bill focuses on removing public input on the most significant projects nationally.  It also reduces the opportunities for meaningful engagement with iwi and hapū.

4. It removes critical environmental protections: The provisions of the Bill give very little weight to the requirement to properly consider the environmental consequences of the proposal. The Bill gives just three Ministers the power to override all of our current environmental protection legislation with almost no input from experts in the field or people who live in the affected areas.  The Bill gives the power to override even prohibited activities under the Resource Management Act 1991 – such as discharging raw sewage into the sea, pollutants into our already degraded rivers and noxious gases into the atmosphere – all of which are detrimental to human health and environmentally destructive.

5. The bill has no effective environmental protection provisions: although applicants are required to prepare environmental assessments, the ultimate evaluation of the project does not require any weight to be given to harmful environmental outcomes.

6. AGBET supports a resource management framework that enables New Zealand industry to operate and expand in a sustainable way.  Enabling development and protecting the environment can be compatible.  There is a lack of constraint and independence in relation to the referral and approval of projects.  In addition, the tourism industry in New Zealand is critical for the economy, tourists flock to the country because of our spectacular natural environment and out “Pure NZ” image – mining in conservation land, polluting our rivers and seas, causing the extinction of unique and ancient wildlife, are the opposite of this image.

7. The Bill is contrary to the National Party’s environmental policy: which aspires to safeguard New Zealand's unique natural environment, native biodiversity, waters and landscapes for future generations.  Addressing the urgent need for management of climate change should be at the centre of any government policy development; failure to do so will inevitably result in costs of a monumental scale. Prosperity will never accrue from projects where the balance sheet does not properly measure the negative costs. These costs may include many direct and indirect components. The latter may include reputational impact internationally, and contravention of international trade, climate change, and other commitments.

8. The bill lacks any real checks and balances to ensure transparency and accountability: Clause 25(8) suggests that Ministers are not required to give reasons if a project is approved, in circumstances where the decision rests largely in the discretion of Ministers, then it is difficult to identify where an error of law may have occurred.  Ministers do not appear to be obliged to state any conflict of interest – this opacity invites corruption.

9. The bill ignores scientific monitoring which highlights the degraded state of our environment: it will encourage and/or permit continuation of industry sectors and land use practices which have degraded oceans, fresh water and biodiversity on private land for the last 30 years according to the government’s own monitoring reports.  It will allow the continuation of sustainable and extractive model of fisheries management and marine ecosystem protection that has led to the collapse of scallops and koura, accelerating the path to extinction of seabirds and marine mammals including Maui’s and Hector’s dolphins and sealions.

Concluding Remarks

We must learn from past mistakes. The reason why we have a complicated process to go through in NZ in order to embark on major projects, such as mining, is to ensure that we do a better job than our ancestors of getting the balance right between benefit and harm. That balance will often be contentious, but the debate needs to be had. This new Bill appears to swerve off into a wildly unbalanced direction. 

To achieve faster, cheaper development costs, the government has proposed an undemocratic and unnecessary bill which will:

• Expose New Zealand internationally on trade and reputation

• Sets no limits on, or thresholds for, environmental segregation

• Tries to limit treaty rights and public inputs in decision making on projects 

• Leave decision making in the hands of three non-expert ministers.

In addition, to find that Schedule 2 (Listed Projects) is blank, and will remain so during the Select Committee process, is outrageous and unacceptable.

In summary, please reconsider this legislation. It is ill-considered, hasty, and deeply flawed. While it attempts to deal with frustrations caused by costs and delays experienced under existing legislation, it tosses aside a safe and sensible approach to facilitating projects that could enhance the lives of New Zealanders while protecting our precious and unique corner of the globe.

Auckland Council's Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Have your Say

The well-being of te Taiao, communities, whanau and hapū on Aotea Great Barrier Island are supported by investment in iwi and community led conservation and specialist council Environmental Services. Councillors need to ensure Local Board and centrally held budgets for all-natural environment work on Aotea and iwi and community led conservation continue - to avoid losing the value of past investments. This will in turn help towards meeting Auckland Council's legislative obligations to maintain indigenous biodiversity across the region.

To achieve this, we support restoring the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) and Water Quality Targeted Rate (WQTR) to their previous levels plus an adjustment for inflation. Specifically for Aotea it means supporting the Local Board’s priorities over the ten-year timeframe, as stated in the consultation document, which are in the Council’s power to deliver. Aotea is regionally very significant for freshwater, terrestrial and marine biodiversity and warrants this long-term investment relative to other board areas. In particular we support:

• Long term funding for Tū Mai Taonga in the 10-year budget.

• An increase in the resourcing and funding of the Marine Biosecurity team, who will be critical in preventing the spread of Caulerpa in the region from Aotea. Current staffing and budgets are a drop in the ocean, as is the proposed allocation of $200,000 to Caulerpa noted in the Discussion Document given Auckland’s long coastline and Marine Biosecurity risks.

• Ongoing support for community conservation, restoration and pest animal and plant management through regional budgets to ensure past investment is not wasted and gains can continue.

• Support for increased investment in Ahu Moana and related initiatives to protect the coastal waters and ecosystems of Aotea.

• Specialist seabird capability being appropriately resourced and funded within Auckland Council to reflect the global significance of the region for ground nesting seabirds.

Auckland Council is the single biggest influencer of natural environment outcomes in the region

• The heavy lifting of conservation in the Auckland region is done by Auckland Council, tangata whenua and communities.

• Auckland Council alone is responsible for maintaining indigenous biodiversity in the region and in our coastal waters.

• The 2024-2034 LTP must resource Council teams, iwi, and communities efficiently to continue work already started.

• And ensure negative environmental impacts from growth, infrastructure and land use do not occur.

Recognition of the environment is clear in the proposal, and this is welcomed, but more investment and focus on outcomes is needed

• The vision and objectives are not achievable without more targeted action and investment.

• The options discussed (Central, Pay More, & Pay Less) are not the only options.

• Restoring NETR and WQTR should be a bottom line for the 2024-2034 LTP.

• Even with this investment, more needs to be done to reverse biodiversity and ecosystem declines.

This LTP sets a vision for Auckland’s environment

“We want to create an Auckland that is beautiful, thriving, and safe, for all Aucklanders... a stunning natural environment – harbours, beaches, forests, maunga, islands, urban trees – that can be accessed and enjoyed by Aucklanders across the region”.

But how will it be made a reality, given the scale of the problems we need to solve?

• Access to nature is limited for many Aucklanders.

• Native species are under threat from pest plants and predators.

• Wetland and freshwater systems lost or degraded.

• Multiple threats to harbours.

• Hauraki Gulf has been declining for more than two decades.

• Twenty-five species of seabirds breed in the region, all threatened.

• Marine life in coastal waters is a shadow of what it was.

Auckland’s biodiversity will continue to decline under the 2024-2034 LTP proposal

• No significant environmental outcomes are specified.

• No goals for water quality – freshwater bodies, harbours or estuaries No goals for invasive species control.

• Silent on species abundance and species extinctions.

• Marine biodiversity and ecosystems are under huge pressure but there is little investment in these areas.

• Climate warming will increase threats.

What does Priority 5: “making the most of our harbours and environment” mean in reality in 2024-2034?

• NETR and WQTR were created because Auckland Council had not prioritised the natural environment or water quality.

• Historic levels of investment had not been enough, and the environment suffered.

• On the other hand, community and iwi participation and support have increased markedly in the last 6 years.

• And blue/green infrastructure is now known to be critical as out climate warms.

• Now is not the time to trade off Auckland’s natural assets.

Caulerpa: LTP can do more than allocate $200k – and can change the outcomes...

• Advocate to government for a fit for purpose plan and budget.

• Increase marine biosecurity capacity to match Auckland’s coastal risks.

• Regional co-ordination and control/removal plan.

• Truly enable local response from iwi and communities.

• Streamline approvals.

• Build long term marine capacity and knowledge systems at same time.

• Include invasive marine species in RPMP.

Local boards are key

• But most of the significant natural taonga in the region are found in a few Local Board areas – and those communities and iwi need to be supported long term to protect them.

• “Fairness of funding” is therefore also needed to achieve better natural environment outcomes.

• Consider which Local Boards can enable the best outcomes and fund them accordingly e.g. Aotea Great Barrier, which has regionally significant wetlands, forests and freshwater as well as marine ecosystems and a number of endemic species.

We support further investment in Māori outcomes in the LTP in relation to te Taiao as the discussion document states

“Kaitiakitanga: the council actively provides for Māori participation in the management of taonga resources. The council works with mana whenua and Māori in the management, restoration, and protection of our water resources, and works with mana whenua and Māori to design/co-design and deliver environmental management and community-led conservation initiatives”.

• The LTP investment in Māori Outcomes should support this intent.

• The Ngāti Rehua-Ngātiwai ki Aotea led Tū Mai Taonga project is generating environmental, social and Māori outcomes and should be supported by Nga Matarae and Environmental Services with long term funding over the 10-year plan. This will anchor the project and attract other government and philanthropic investment as has been the case in the first two years of its operation.

• We note that this project is also a 10-year priority for the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board.

IN SUMMARY

We request that Council honour the intent of the LTP’s vision and priorities and increase investment in the natural environment regardless of which option Aucklanders choose.

Submission on Fisheries New Zealand Discussion Paper No 2023/19 (Discussion Paper) – Bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf

The Aotea Great Barrier Environmental Trust works collaboratively with iwi, community and agencies to advocate for and progress environmental outcomes on the island. We act as the umbrella trust for many projects, the largest of which is the Predator Free 2050 funded eradication project, which is now lead by Ngāti Rehua-Ngātiwai ki Aotea. As advocates we have supported the Sea Change process since 2014 and provided independent science-based submissions on marine dumping, marine protection, shellfish and seabird conservation and discontinuing harmful fishing methods. We have been monitoring MPI’s response to the Caulerpa incursion since August 2021 when it was found on the Barrier and are working with tangata whenua on a local response.

Summary of feedback on the Discussion Paper

We supported in principle the establishment of a Fisheries Plan for the Hauraki Gulf, in order to help protect its valuable fisheries resources and marine biodiversity. We also welcome the Discussion Document on the Proposed Options for Bottom Fishing Access Zones (BFAZs), and the considerable work that has gone into its preparation.

However, we do not support any of the options proposed in the discussion paper. We support Option Zero – the discontinuation of these methods in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park from 2025, as agreed in the Sea Change process.

This is because:

1. These methods are damaging to the marine ecology as has been widely documented over decades.

2. They are not consistent with the purposes of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

3. Ongoing BFAZs as proposed are in direct conflict with the first Management Objective (1.1) of the Hauraki Gulf Fisheries Plan.

4. They are not supported by the community of Aotea – as indicated by the Sea Change process and recent requests for an exclusion area around Aotea.

5. They were specifically identified as to stop in the Gulf by 2025 in the Sea Change recommendations (a process which included commercial fishers).

6. They will spread the invasive exotic caulerpa seaweed when they come into contact with it in the areas south west of Aotea Great Barrier.

These methods are destructive to the marine ecology

Aotea has suffered the effects of unrestricted bottom contact fishing methods for many decades. These impacts have been documented in the Gulf by successive studies and the State of Our Gulf reports prepared by the Hauraki Gulf Forum since 2000 and the Ministry is well aware of this. Around Great Barrier the impacts are as negative as they have been elsewhere in the Gulf:

• Reduction in fish biomass across multiple species.

• Damage to substrates and the marine ecology.

• Wasted catches found floating or washed ashore.

Risk of spreading Caulerpa has not been factored into this proposal

Exotic Caulerpa has established in 800ha meadows to depths of up to 40m on the west and south coasts of Aotea Great Barrier and in several other locations in the Gulf. The new risk to our marine environment posed by Caulerpa and the huge damage already apparent around Aotea is of grave concern to the community and agencies.

MPI has in 2023 received requests from the community and iwi to exclude bottom contact methods from around the island in order to avoid fragmentation and spreading of Caulerpa masses that grow to these depths in our waters. Caulerpa is a marine ecological disaster. It could be caught up and carried to new locations by fishing gear and this is why the community requested such an exclusion.

Bottom fishing is not consistent with the purpose of the HGMP

These methods have long been responsible for large-scale destruction of benthic habitats and biodiversity in the Hauraki Gulf. Such destructive fishing practices have no place in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. The Act for the Park specifically recognises that:

“The interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance.”

Allowing BFAZs is in direct conflict with Management Objective (1.1) of the Hauraki Gulf Fisheries Plan

The very first Management Objective (1.1) of the Hauraki Gulf Fisheries Plan: “Protect marine benthic habitats from ANY adverse effects of bottom-contact fishing methods” cannot be met under any of the proposed options.

An Option Zero - the phased withdrawal of commercial bottom fishing from the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, should have been part of the consultation process and it is a failure of this process that it is not. We oppose all of the four proposed options for BFAZs.

Of extreme concern is the lack of credible evidence supporting the locations of the proposed BFAZs. There is little to no recorded biodiversity data for those specific areas. In addition there are strong cautions on the interpretation of the biodiversity modelling, clearly stated in the scientific report that the BFAZs are based on, which have not been followed or even acknowledged in the current Discussion Document.

In our view there is very little basis for the claim that the proposed BFAZs are low biodiversity impact. Locations of the BFAZs cannot be justified until further biodiversity data is collected, as suggested in the scientific report. Further, we support the submission of the Auckland Conservation Board on this area of the document.

Sea Change recommended the removal of all bottom fin fishing methods from the Hauraki Gulf by 2025

The very extensive public consultation for Sea Change included commercial fishing stakeholders. It also included Aotea Great Barrier residents. There was almost unanimous support for the exclusion of these methods from our waters and the Gulf in these engagements. Why do the options put forward now in 2023 for consultation to that same community not include this option, despite the clear mandate from that very comprehensive consultation process?

In summary, the Aotea Great Barrier Environmental Trust does not support any option put forward in the Discussion Document. We request the recommendations emerging from the Sea Change process are implemented in full, effectively the removal of all bottom fishing methods for fin fish by 2025 from the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

Aotea Great Barrier Local Board 3-Year Plan (2023) - Submissions Requested on the Draft Local Board Plan

---

Aotea’s newly elected Local Board is working on its next 3-year plan.  This is the document that lays out the community’s priorities and which the rest of the Council group uses to guide decisions about services and budgets for Aotea over the next 3 years. There is a short online questionnaire on the webpage to fill out (see link above) – or a form you can print. It will take 10 minutes of your time – more if you have more to say. It asks you to answer any or all of 7 questions, answer them all or pick the ones which align to your priorities.

The deadline is 14th August 2023 (4pm)

---

KEY POINTS FOR SUBMISSIONS: AOTEA GREAT BARRIER LOCAL BOARD 3 YEAR PLAN

In the ‘Environment’ section of the form (Question 5 of 7), we recommend you consider using one or all of the following points:

1. The overall approach in the plan to the importance of the environment is fully supported and much appreciated, noting the importance of nurturing and restoring our precious and unique ecosystems both on land and at sea. Aotea’s reputation as a visitor destination is increasingly dependent on its credentials as an eco-destination.

2. Pest management is a critical component of biodiversity preservation. While acknowledging the imperative to take a collaborative approach to pest management, it is also important for governing bodies such as Council to provide leadership to help the community navigate through difficult and polarised issues such as rat eradication, cat and dog control, and feral pig control. These issues can’t be avoided because they are “too difficult” - the consequences of neglect are severe and unacceptable.

3. Beach signage relating to off-leash dog exercise needs to be obvious, clear and unambiguous, and backed up with enforcement from animal control.

4. Aggressive management of new pest incursions is critical. The Caulerpa incursion is an example of an inadequate response to a new biodiversity threat. We need to do better with that particular issue, and any newly identified threats. Resources to manage invasive plant species must be allocated to avoid losing ground which has already been gained.

5. Everything possible should be done to support and nurture the major environmental projects which are led by mana whenua, especially Tū Mai Taonga. These are significant initiatives which provide employment, harness community aspirations, and promote self-esteem and confidence (apart from their potentially significant environmental gains). Auckland Council needs to support and resource marine protection and restoration through Ahu Moana or other measures lead by mana whenua and supported by the community.

6. Similarly, the different conservation groups on the island are gathering momentum and achieving real gains, both in terms of conservation gains, and by developing community spirit and harnessing the power of collective action. These achievements have come through Local Board support and significant volunteer input, motivated by the enthusiasm of those leading the initiatives. It’s vital that these efforts are nurtured and maintained.

7. Given the extent of Department of Conservation management of Aotea/Great Barrier land we believe that it is important for Council and the local Board to be working closely with DOC to leverage their resources for managing the issues of biosecurity on land and sea, pest management/eradication, and visitor numbers.

8. Climate change is correctly identified as an issue of critical importance, and the initiatives to address it are supported. However, it should also be noted that carbon sequestration in wetlands is significant and long lasting, and efforts to restore and preserve the significant areas of wetland on the island should be enhanced and supported.

9. Tree planting, particularly long-lived native plant species, is also of major importance for carbon storage and landscape stabilisation. Council support for riparian planting is applauded but the planting needs to be everywhere.

10. Water quality is indeed an issue of great importance. It should be noted that the extensive numbers of wide-ranging feral pigs in our bush and waterways are a significant risk to water quality and human health. The new stock exclusion regulations of the RMA apply to significant areas of Aotea, with enforcement deadlines approaching.

Aotea Great Barrier Local Board 3-Year Plan (2023) - Initial Submission

---

Aotea’s newly elected Local Board is working on its next 3-year plan.  This is the document that lays out the community’s priorities and which the rest of the Council group uses to guide decisions about services and budgets for Aotea over the next 3 years. There is a short online questionnaire on the webpage to fill out (see link above) – or a form you can print. It will take 10 minutes of your time – more if you have more to say. It asks you to choose 3 priorities for environment, community and infrastructure and leaves room for comments, please feel free to use any (or all) of the points below in the form’s comments sections.

The deadline is 30 April 2023

---

KEY POINTS FOR SUBMISSIONS: AOTEA GREAT BARRIER LOCAL BOARD 3 YEAR PLAN

1. Aotea is unique in the Auckland region because of the high concentration of threatened ecosystems and biodiversity here. This area is not like other Local Board areas in the Auckland region, and the Local Board needs to support mana whenua and the island’s community and private landowners to do the right thing. This work should in turn be supported by appropriate funding for biosecurity work that reflects the regional importance of protecting Aotea.

2. The vision of Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea to remove predators from the island and restore its mauri needs to be clearly acknowledged in the 3 Year Plan, as it needs to support of the Council and the Local Board to be fulfilled.

3. The Aotea community takes its responsibilities to protect and restore nature seriously. This is why the community supports the vision of a predator free Aotea, and is why proportionally more households are trapping rats on Aotea than in any other community in Aotearoa New Zealand. Support for the community to continue this work on their own land is needed from the Local Board.

4. The Local Board and Auckland Council are very effective supporters of community led conservation on Aotea and this is an important part of their role. Participation in restoration and conservation improved wellbeing and helps people connect to the natural environment they live in, as well as to others. This should be a key theme in the plan and be supported by appropriate funding.

5. Responsible pet ownership, of dogs and cats, is very important for the island’s wildlife. We need the Council and the Local Board to support this with appropriate by-laws supporting enforcement against those who are currently not appropriately controlling their animals around birds and their habitats.

6. Visitor income is very important to the island’s economy and the top reason people visit is the natural environment. There are also significant employment benefits from having a thriving conservation sector. The link between the economic health of the island and the environment should be explicit in the plan.

7. The marine environment is vital to the island and the coastal zone is not protected adequately, nor are the coastal waters around the island. It is nearly 10 years since the Sea Change process identified how strongly people feel about declining fish stocks and it is appropriate for the Local Board to advocate for faster progress on marine restoration. Under the RMA, Auckland Council can move to ban commercial fishing and other damaging practices such as dredging to protect biodiversity. Ahu moana and other mana whenua led initiatives should also be acknowledged and supported in the plan.

8. Marine biosecurity is increasingly of concern to the community – there have been too many arrivals of invasive species already and this trend is unlikely to change with warming seas and more north easterly systems. There is no marine biosecurity plan for Aotea, nor permanently allocated Council or MPI resources to carry out education, surveillance, detection and response. This despite sea squirt, fan worm, Caulerpa, and Asian paddle crab all arriving on Aotea before the mainland. The Local Board has advocated effectively for changes to resource allocation by Auckland Council before and this issue requires strong advocacy from the board and acknowledgement in the 3 Year plan.

Stop Auckland’s Mayor de-funding community conservation and the natural environment

Did you know that the Mayor’s budget proposal will dramatically reduce funding for all natural environment work in the region and most projects on Aotea? And did you know the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board’s budget is being cut by more per capita than any other board?

You can help stop this proposal going ahead. Just click the link and fill out the submission form online. Every individual submission counts, so please give it a go, and encourage your friends and family to do the same. We need more submissions to support investment in community and environmental projects – or we will lose this funding.

Please make a submission here: HAVE YOUR SAY.

The cut off to do it is 11pm, Tuesday 28 March.

You don’t have to answer every question in the form, but you might want to because most have some direct or indirect impact on environmental funding. We have put some guidelines together for you to use/cut and paste if you would like to.  We did not hold back, because this proposal is a misinformed assault on council support for the natural environment and communities.

In a nutshell…

Every Auckland Council budget or grant that supports this trust and others like it to carry out community conservation, and also some regional biodiversity protection and biosecurity activity is going to be reduced or cut. Cuts to staff who support this work are likely. Combined with the proposal to pause the collection of the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR), it will very probably mean no new projects can be funded.  Nor will any additional funding be available for existing work. Combined with the (frankly) savage cuts to the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board’s community and environment budgets, this will make it much tougher for many of our amazing projects to carry on. Just when we’re getting good at this stuff!

Individual submissions really do count in the consultation process so please jump online and fill out the form by 11pm on Tuesday 28 March.

VIEW OUR GUIDELINE DOCUMENT IN WORD OR PDF