UNHAPPY NORTHLAND BOATIES
Dear Editor
Northland Regional Council (NRC) recently sent its invoices for the annual charges to all mooring owners in Northland. Most rubbed their eyes when they read about a new “Marine Biosecurity Charge” they are requested to pay in future, on top of their previous fees. What’s it all about?
Well, on 27 June 2017 the NRC adopted a Marine Pathway Management Plan (the second region in the country to do so, after Fiordland). Some 65 percent of the plan is to be funded by this biosecurity charge – levied on owners of moorings, boatsheds and marina berths.
NRC believes this fee will target vessel owners who, it claims, are mainly responsible for the spreading of marine pests already established elsewhere in the country, e.g. in Auckland and Whangarei Harbours.
The plan makes it an offense for a person in charge of a vessel to enter Northland waters or to move between “designated places” unless they have ensured they have no more than “light fouling” on their hulls. Otherwise they can be fined up to $5,000.
This policy has been established despite the submissions and a petition of more than 700 concerned residents, without any further consultation or collaboration. Even though the objections clearly show that NRC’S project is more characteristic of flaws than substantiated findings and judgement.
It actually seems to be the product of either badly-informed or irresponsible decision makers – it is ineffective, inefficient, impractical, inconsistent with scientific evidence – and unfair.
In a Council meeting, for example, one councillor remarked: “It’s ridiculous to suggest boats from Auckland should pay, as, when they are towed up to Northland, they dry out and are not a risk.”
He apparently confused trailered boats with the up to 4,000 non-trailered boats that visit Northland each year. His statement was also inconsistent with scientific evidence that at least 21 days of exposure to air is required to ensure that all organisms die.
It also appears the councillors approved the MPMP and its charging policy with a preconceived opinion that Northland recreational boats were the problem, rather than boats with poorly-maintained hulls spending time in marine pest-infested areas and then entering Northland waters.
NRC assumes that the likelihood of the introduction of marine pests because of hull fouling is 90 percent, but there is no reference to support this figure. It is also implausible since NRC itself lists 19 out of 20 (sic!) high-risk marine pests as being capable of being dispersed by water currents.
In its own report, it states Mediterranean fanworm larvae could spread over 15km naturally and that the Asian paddle crab pest is capable of swimming long distances. This all means that boats are not at all the determining factor of the spread of marine pests.
Moreover, there is overwhelming and independent scientific evidence for the propagation of marine organisms by tidal streams. Examples include Gibson, R.N. on ‘Tidal migration in marine animals’ in Hydrobiology-springer Journals (2003) or R.B. Forward & R.A. Tankersley on ‘Selective Tidal-stream transport of Marine animals’ in Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review (2001).
There is also strong evidence that flotsam and marine debris spread marine organisms to a very large extent (see dissertations by M. Thiel: ‘Rafting of benthic macrofauna’ (2003), T.N. Hofer: ‘Marine debris, a growing problem: Sources, distribution, composition and impacts’ in Marine Pollution, New Research (2008) and S. Aliani & A. Molcard: ‘Hitch-hiking on floating marine debris’ (2003).
NRC has obviously not done its homework. This has resulted in an overestimate of the effectiveness of a single marine pathway in limiting the spread of marine pests to Northland.
Another sore point is NRC’S plan to check boats’ hulls with divers. The current tender for diving contractors is for 2,000 boats to be inspected during each summer period only. There are 4,379 permanently-moored boats in Northland (those which lie at anchor not counted) and up to 4,000 visiting boats, making for more than 8,000 in all.
The circumstance that pests don’t spread only during the summer months but also in any month of the year remains unconsidered in this connection.
And where are boat owners supposed to haul out their vessels when their hulls exceed “light fouling”? Parengarenga Harbour, for example, is around 90 miles by direct passage from Opua. That would take an average 12m yacht 18 hours or more, subject to the weather. The haul-out at Opua is often fully-booked for long periods. So how can the MPMP’S requirements be met in time and to a reasonable standard?
Last, but not least: NRC states that vessels which don’t leave the harbour or bay where they are moored, do not pose a security threat. Why do they still have to pay the charge? And why do visiting boats from Auckland or Whangarei, that pose the greatest risks of spreading marine pests to Northland waters, not have to pay?
There should be serious concern that such a defective and unpopular plan may become the template for other regions’ plans. Many Northland boat owners have refused to pay this unfounded and unacceptable new fee. But all New Zealand boaties should keep a watchful eye on similar developments elsewhere in the country! Klaus-p Kurz – MSC. Mar.geol., Oceanogr., Ltcdr GN (ret.) On behalf of Te Wahapu Mooring Owners and Ratepayers