This week our GM Inshore Fisheries Tiff Bock talks about a challenge we're facing - the introduction of the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan - or as we see it a "DIY fisheries management plan". While the plan is a regional one, it could very well have a massive and lasting impact on us all.
Here is my main message for today: the management of fisheries does not fall within Regional or local Council remits and the RMA needs to be amended to ensure that fisheries are managed appropriately under the Fisheries Act based on scientific evidence and with robust consultation.
Let's start with the basics. What is the Resource Management Act (RMA)? Well, its purpose is to manage the use of land, air and water, including the coastal marine area (out to 12 nautical miles). It's the tool for managing people's use of natural and physical resources in a balanced and healthy way.
Historically, fishing was not controlled under the RMA unless it overlapped with restrictions for other reasons like noise or pollution or construction of infrastructure. There was case law on this from 2004 when it was confirmed that the RMA doesn't regulate the act of fishing, although the RMA could manage effects on fish habitats.
But despite this confirmation, over the past decade we've started to see regional councils take more control of their coastal areas as it relates to managing fisheries - changing settings outside of the Fisheries Act.
The first instance was in 2016 when the Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan was challenged by the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust, who sought a declaration that the Council's Plan could include spatial controls/limiting fishing activities for biodiversity, habitat and Māori values, so long as they are for RMA purposes (eg, maintaining indigenous biological diversity) not just fisheries management per se. The courts found that Councils can impose RMA controls to maintain indigenous biological diversity even if those controls restrict fishing, provided the controls are not for the purpose of managing fishing or fisheries under the Fisheries Act. The final Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan included spatial closures of 3 reef systems prohibiting removal of fish/marine life.
Then, in 2017, Northland notified its regional plan, which at first didn't include any rules or bans on commercial fishing. Local hapū and eNGOs challenged the plan, saying fishing controls should be introduced. The issue ended up in the Environment Court, and in May 2023, the Court agreed with the appeals in part. Now, the plan includes some areas where all fishing is banned, plus extra restrictions around Cape Brett to about 100m depth.
Now we have the plan that prompted this Update, the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan (WRCP).
The WRCP was notified for submissions in August 2023. It did not include any proposals for controls on fishing. Seafood New Zealand made a submission supporting the approach taken - noting that any controls on fishing should be implemented through the Fisheries Act 1996 as the most appropriate, effective and efficient tool.
Of course, as with any consultation, there were a number of submitters who saw things differently. They proposed that the WRCP should include controls on fishing, in particular establishing no-take rules in some of the areas that were already identified as 'Significant Indigenous Biodiversity Areas'. They also proposed that bottom trawling should be banned, although it was not made clear where or how widely that prohibition would apply. Seafood New Zealand participated in the independent panel hearing and provided legal input on why it would be inappropriate to implement controls on fishing.
The decision on the proposed WRCP was announced on 14 October, and it has left us stunned and frustrated.
The WRCP has been significantly amended in a number of ways, now including a prohibition of bottom trawl, Danish seine and dredging in all of the Waikato Coastal Marine Area except for specified "benthic access areas". The identified "benthic access areas" are the same as the most conservative option that MPI consulted on as part of the Bottom Trawl Access Zones on which no decision has been made.
This is a huge decision by the Council, and we consider it to be inconsistent with the direction of the court on the previous instances where fisheries controls have been implemented (eg, it's not small-scale, it's fisheries management, and the need hasn't been clearly demonstrated).
Our fishers weren't given the opportunity to have any say on these now final amendments to the plan - changes that really are going to have an impact on their livelihoods. We're not just talking individuals, we're talking families and communities.
Perhaps part of the challenge is that not many people out there fully understand just how the Fisheries Act works. The Act requires not only that fish stocks be managed sustainably, but that any adverse effects on the aquatic environment be managed. We work within the strict limits set by government based on science and evidence. At the same time, it's important to consider the effects that management decisions can have on fishers and their families.
Seafood New Zealand will be lodging an appeal of the WRCP, as we need clarity and security for our people. Using the RMA to manage fishing is not okay, we need certainty about how our fisheries are managed based on evidence and taking into consideration the people who provide healthy kaimoana for Kiwis to enjoy.
