ERMA: Hearing dates set for reassessment of methyl bromide

Dates have now been set for five hearings to be held in May 2010 as part of the next stage of the methyl bromide reassessment process.

The period for commenting on the application for reassessment closed in late February 2010. A total of 92 submissions were received. ERMA New Zealand is now reviewing submissions. Once done, the staff will prepare an update paper for the decision-making committee of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to consider. This will include a summary of submissions and any further relevant information, as well as the staff’s recommendation in light of submissions.

Some of the issues raised in the submissions include buffer zones, modelling, monitoring, recapture and public health concerns.

Approximately 40 per cent of submitters asked to speak at a hearing.

The hearings are set down for:

  • Monday, 17 May in Wellington;
  • Tuesday, 18 May in Nelson;
  • Wednesday, 19 May in Picton/Blenheim;
  • Thursday, 20 May in Tauranga; and
  • Friday, 21 May in Auckland.

Venues and times will be confirmed shortly and submitters who have asked to speak at a hearing will be contacted to make arrangements.

After the hearings, the Environmental Risk Management Authority will consider all information put before it, from all sources, before making its decision on future use of the substance.

The decision could approve the use of methyl bromide for some or all of its current uses, add stricter controls, or prohibit some or all of its uses.

A final decision is expected in mid to late 2010.

For further information on the reassessment, visit the homepage at
http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/hs/methyl%20bromide/index.html

Members of the public are welcome to attend the hearings, though only submitters may speak.

If you would like to attend a hearing, please register your interest with Samantha Smith, samantha.smith@ermanz.govt.nz, 04 918 4880 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 04 918 4880 end_of_the_skype_highlighting, to ensure you are advised of venues and times.

Posted in Methyl Bromide, Submissions and Letters | Tagged | Comments Off

Guardians Submission to ERMA review of Methyl Bromide

Download printable version of this submission

History of issue in NZ

You will be aware of issue raised in Port Nelson by the widows and families of the 6 port workers who had died of Motor neuron disease, we are told that there are now up to 12 widows, and the only common denominator is the neuro toxic gas called Methyl bromide that all of these men were exposed to during their work exporting logs.

The campaigners put pressure on the Nelson district council to conduct Air Modeling which showed that concentrated plumes of Methyl bromide could travel for up to 10 kilometers.
The clean Air plan for the port zone said that they could continue to fumigate but the fumigant had to be recaptured and filtered then recycled or destroyed rather than releasing to atmosphere.

The industry knowing that the associated costs would reduce their profit margins and that the MDC had no restrictions on the use of log fumigants chose instead to fumigate their logs in Picton.
Between 3 to 5 tons are being release per fumigation.

As you can imagine the Nelson stevedores that were traveling over to work the ships shared their concerns with our local wharves, our Picton campaign started at that point.

Our workers were concerned that they were being exposed to Methyl Bromide that they could neither see, taste or smell and had been warned that the gas was cumulative.

They were expected to work while the fumigations were being carried out, and loader drivers were expected to pick up fumigated logs as soon as the covers were drawn, either the fumigators or workers were supplied with coveralls or gas masks.

On occasions the covers would rip or blow off in high wind conditions, these covers are held down by water snakes around the bottom edge, they are not tied down!
Anyone experienced with using tarpaulins knows that in swirling gusty winds over 40 knots it’s impossible to keep tarps in place. Tied or otherwise

At the last fumigations in Picton the wind strength was measured at the ferry terminal to be gusting at up to 130 knots!
Fumigations under tarps should not be allowed under any circumstances! It’s not good enough to say only fumigate under a certain wind strength because when they get behind schedule they throw caution to the wind.

The fumigators say that after the tarps are removed that the gas is undetectable within 10 metres of the stack, they also say that because its heavier than air it doesn’t rise, well its not a magic act, 5 tons of this stuff doesn’t just disappear ! It’s got to go somewhere and if it’s not discernable within 10 metres it must have gone straight up then where?

Air Modeling

Genera, MDC and the Port Company all adamantly refuse to conduct air modeling. !

Nelson Marlb Health Board

When men in Nelson working in a yard adjacent to the port were exposed to a plume of gas they had immediate blood tests that showed high levels of Methyl Bromide and OSH accepted their claims how ever, Doctor Kiddel came out with a statement that there is no evidence of any link between M/B and Motor Neuron disease.

Professor Ian Shaw vice chancellor of Canterbury University and a world leading authority on M/B
Has told us that Dr Kiddel statement is correct but is a play on words because no one world wide has done scientific research to investigate the connection but in his educated opinion he believes that there is a link.

Ask you self why has there been no research, use of M/B is used for fumigation of our nations imports and exports, The govt believe that the use of M/B is of national importance, the industry are fighting to retain the status quo that only leaves the workers and they cant afford it, so who will carry out this research in NZ?

Looking at studies done in the USA on men involved in fumigations over a 5 yr period show they have a much higher than average incidence of throat, lung heart and respiratory problems, rashes and a much higher incidence of prostrate cancer and neurological illness.

Tests done with rats are also extremely disturbing. The NMDHB obviously don’t have access to the internet!

World wide the authorities highlight the fact that M/B is the worst ozone depleting gas we have.
They all highlight this fact and refuse to acknowledge the risk to community health.
This is because if research was done and ignored by authorities those authorities would be technically liable to legal challenge.
Although we acknowledge the effects on the ozone layer we as a community are far more concerned about the cumulative effects on the health and safety of our workers and community.

NMDHB, Labour Dept, MDC and ERMA all say to us, show us the medical proof that people are dying because of exposure, we have men who have been exposed and are very sick as a result and have blood tests showing up to 30 points of M/B, safe limit is 5. Why are these blood tests not proof enough.?

A wharfie who was concerned about being exposed in an uncontrolled release when tarps ripped off went to the doctors he died soon after of heart failure, a night watchman who had to check the tarps at night died of brain tumors, fumigators that have cancer, people who are sensitized to toxic sprays that break out into a rash their teeth start tingling on the very day that fumigations are conducted. But No we don’t have scientific proof, what we have is a very frightened community.
All 4 of our local doctors have come out strongly in support of banning log fumigations with uncontrolled release to atmosphere and want to see gasses filtered and recaptured or destroyed.

A telephone call by a person, who had seen our latest protest on TV said that his brother in law was a fumigator using M/B in the holds of ships in Lyttelton 20 yrs ago, got very sick and died of motor neuron disease.
We have been told that a Samoan guy doing fumigation work on ships in Bluff also died unexpectedly.

The doctors say to us that it shouldn’t be up to the community to prove that these toxic gases are causing health problems they say it is what you call “Blame the victim”

We are not the perpetrators of this activity, if industry want to use dangerous neurotoxins the onus should be on them to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their
activity is safe and the best way to do that is to conduct scientific air modeling by an independent expert not hired by any party with a vested interest in the operation.
And if they cant prove that its 100% safe authorities need to use the precautionary approach to place a moratorium on log fumigations until council promulgates a variation to the district plan that makes log fumigations a resource consented activity with strict conditions.

We have a health board that for 3 yrs has refused to even speak with us and a Labour dept who refuses to meet with us and a council who refuses to make log fumigations a resourse consent activity and who even refuse to place any conditions on the conditions of release.

As a community we tried to get Annette Baxter from Dept of Labour to come to Picton and work with us and the Port Company to look at a code of practice that the fumigators should adhere to, wind conditions, strength , direction , temperature, cold inversion layer etc….. She refused.

Recently after a complaint about an uncontrolled release she sent a representative over to work with the port company but never consulted with us. Why is this? is it just arrogance or does the HSNO act state that Dept of Labour are not to liaise with members of the community, we have been studying this issue for 3 yrs we have local knowledge of the climatic conditions and topography . We also have historic information that is valuable when assessing this issue.

We had worked with the Port Company on a Code of Practice, the one developed by the Dept of Labour and industry is not robust enough!

The Port Companys new Code of Practise

Says no fumigation release in over 25 knots of Nor West, ( prevailing wind blowing over town. ) This is wrong ! there should be NO release at all if the wind is blowing over the town .
It does have a condition on temperature , no release if temp is under 10 degrees.

But there is no condition taking the cold inversion layer into account, and this is something that we are very concerned about because the cloud cover sits right down lower than the road around the grove track which we suspect will create a ceiling that the fumigants will stay below and the Nor west could blow it down around our houses and schools and residential areas.
Remember also that the Cook Strait ferries are located 200 metres from the boundary.
The crew of the Bluebridge ferries have laid an official complaint with their company about them being exposed to risk of toxic spray drift .
The ladies at Blue Bridge have rung us complaining of head aches following fumigations and their dept is at least a mile away from the log yard.

We have purused the Genera Emergency procedure, it is not complete enough , it talks about stopping work and evacuating the area if there is an uncontrolled release of fumigant, and monitoring ( there should be NO workers in the yard while fumigation is under way.)

How ever the Emergency should state what generia staff would do if a group of men where exposed to an uncontrolled release and showing symptoms , head aches, stinging eyes, rashes, etc.
They should of worked out a procedure with the health care professionals , the NMDHB who refuse to address this issue ( WHY ?) should be involved in working out this procedure,Doctors, Ambulances, hospital, should they first be stripped and thrown in a shower ?
IF 20 men where seriously affected this procedure should be prepared in advance , because this would be a task that the local doctors surgery would not be equipped to handle.

ERMA approach seems to be to have a set of national guidelines for use of methyl bromide, after spending 3 yrs studying the fumigations and researching the issue we are strongly of the opinion that every port should have a Risk assessment and a Code of Practice that is Site Specific taking into account the topography, climate prevailing winds, cold inversion layer, proximity to other businesses or residential areas.
The local Councils all need to have a clean air Plan that addresses the issue of Spray Drift, Fumigations need to be subject to Resource Consent with strict conditions, any person who is releasing toxic gas or spray into the atmosphere needs to be registered trained and properly equipped with safety clothing , coveralls, gas masks, gloves boots etc…

As for log fumigations using large amounts of neurotoxin that is soluable in water Eco toxic, and cumulative they should be made to fumigate in an air tight facility (shed NOT tarpaulins!) and have to recapture, filter, recycle or destroy.

The industry says that the technology isn’t available to recapture on this big a scale, we have spoken with the biggest engineering firm in Blenheim and they say that it is possible and that the technology is basic.

Topography

Because Port Shakespeare is located in an excavated cut between two adjoining bays it creates a wind tunnel, and the prevailing Nor west winds blow over the town of Picton that lays only a couple of hundred meters south East of the log yard.
Over the years we have witnessed coal dust , Lucerne dust and ordinary dust being blown over our homes and settling on roofs 2/3 miles away from the port.
Recently when the Port Company were preparing the log yard for tar sealing large clouds of dust were observed sweeping right over the town and up both the elevation and Essons Valley both of which act like natural funnels creating a natural draft.

Methyl Bromide may be heavier than air but it’s not as heavy as coal or Lucerne dust and we know how far that travels.

We also have a phenomenon called a cold air inversion layer that occurs all year round resulting in a layer of cloud that sweeps clouds across the Sound and hangs directly above Shakespeare bay only a couple of hundred feet above the ground, the Nor west wind then blows these clouds down around our houses, (we have photos if you would like.)
Eco Toxic

When first used here the M/B had a stenching agent called chloropicrin, not only did it stink like rotten eggs but was highly toxic as well, having been used during WW1 with the old Mustard gas.
The whole foreshore and adjacent wharf area started to stink like raw sewerage, but no sign of sewerage, people living on boats at the ferry terminal were convinced that it was M/B from log fumigations which is water soluable had found its way into the water and that the smell was coming from the Chloropicrin.
They stopped using the stenching agent, now we have no idea if we are exposed or not, we suspect that it’s still finding its way into our moana and effecting our fish and kaimoana

Careful What You Wish For

We are conscious of the fact that your reassessment has very narrow terms of reference and what deeply concerns us is that the MDC have totally ignored our community protests and have said they will wait until your reassessment process is complete before they consider promulgating a clean air plan for Marlborough.
This will take up to 2 yrs and at the end of that period the industry will just switch to phosphine and none of the conditions that you propose in the reassessment of M/B will apply!
So please consider very carefully a recommendation that every region that has an export port and is fumigating logs must have a robust air plan that demands recapture , filtering recycling or destruction of fumigant regardless what gas they use , remember if a toxin kills bugs it will be just as deadly to people.

The Clean air Plan must also require the activity to have resourse consent with strict conditions.
Don’t take it as a given that district or regional councils already have adequate district plans because most like the MDC will have vested interests that have prevented them from preparing such a plan.

IS the HSNO ACT a Myth here in Marlborough?

We are very disappointed with the HSNO Act, the MDC say that they are not responsible for administering the act, they say that its not written into their district plan , they don’t do monitoring or compliance of the act.
That is the responsibility of the Dept of Labour and the nearest branch is 2 hrs away in Nelson. There are 2 mountian ranges in between and it took 3 yrs to get them to come over and evaluate the fumigation issues, This system is dysfunctional and your review needs to address this issue !
One of your recommendations could be that the HSNO ACT is written into the Marlb district Plan and staff are suitably trained in the HSNO Act and deputized by the Dept of Labour to carry out their duties here in Marlb. Or Dept of Labour should have staff here in Marlborough.
MDC staff used to carry out those duties under the old Dangerous Goods Act.
Vested Interests

The MDC are the 3rd largest forestry owners in Marlb, they also own the Port Company 100% so is getting 2 bites of the cherry and it is very much in their commercial interests to maintain the status quo! No resourse consent and No conditions on uncontrolled release.

Temperature

If log Fumigations are carried out in the open air under tarps, then air temperature is a critical factor.
I have been contacted by a log exporter who has major issues with Genera, due to two issues one fumigating when the temp is to cold, process doesn’t work effectively if temp drops below 10 degrees.
This year we had an early winter with night time temperatures dropping below zero as early as Easter, a number of shipments in April May and June would have been fumigated in sub zero condition, these fumigations would have been only partially effective. This wouldn’t happen if fumigations were carried out in an air tight facility.

The other issue is that when they are running late behind schedule, they have loaded unfumigated stacks. (this has been verified by wharfies.)
This exporter had a shipment of logs rejected at their destination port because they hadn’t fumigated properly and cost this company over a million dollars.
He said that he has found new markets in china, shipped in containers, where they fumigate at port of arrival and it’s done in enormous sheds, just open all the doors and flood the shed.
MAF

He would like MAF to change their policy about having to fumigate before they leave , he said its faster and much cheaper to fumigate at port of arrival .
These are his suggestions.

1. Preinspection certificate to be done in NZ Maf inspects the logs at port for excess dirt, mould, fungi etc.
2. Fumigation certificate to raised  from  India or China, and complies with our standard.
3. Photosanitry cert to be raised from the preinspection cert and the fumigation cert to form the photosanitry cert so the importing country accepts the product free of pests and diseases.

Leon Wood

Ozone Depletion

Although our primary concern are the health effects and impact on our marine environment Erma surely cannot ignore the fact that M/B is one of the worst know ozone depleting gases, I’ve heard it said that its worse than the CFC’s that used to be used for refrigeration., that was banned because of its effect on the ozone.
M/B is used in such massive amounts 5 tons being released at a time, Recapture should be made mandatory for this reason alone.

Conclusion

Well kia ora guys, thank you for your efforts, wish you well with your mahi; please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any queries about this rambling epistle Noho Ora Mai,
Pete & Takutai Beech.
Guardians of the Sounds.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Methyl Bromide: Maritime Union wants answers

Press Release: Maritime Union of New Zealand
1st Feb 2010
Maritime Union wants answers to Government involvement in Methyl Bromide organization

The Maritime Union has attacked comments by the group Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide Reduction (STIMBR) which downplays valid concerns about the use of the poison gas.

Maritime Union of New Zealand General Secretary Joe Fleetwood has condemned a statement from STIMBR (1 February 2010) entitled “Gas links with disease unfounded” that asserts there is no proof that methyl bromide is connected with motor neuron disease.

Mr Fleetwood says there is no proof as yet, but important new research into the health hazards of methyl bromide has detected possible links and there has been criticism of past investigations.

“On the one hand STIMBR is claiming no one knows what causes motor neuron disease, yet the very reason that further research is being done is due to possible links. As responsible employers they should be encouraging any new findings that build on current limited knowledge. STIMBR also quote outdated research in their public statement.”

STIMBR is made up of businesses that have a direct financial interest in the use of methyl bromide, but until recently had Government representation and financial contributions.

Mr Fleetwood says he is very concerned that the Government has until recently been officially represented on what was clearly a partisan organization that appeared motivated by the interests of private businesses, and which had no representation of maritime workers.

“STIMBR is not an industry group, it’s an employers group, managers who sit in offices a safe distance from methyl bromide fumigation. It’s a public relations cookup to portray themselves as reducing methyl bromide when they are the beneficiaries of its use. What Government agencies were doing involved with STIMBR is a major concern and we will be approaching the Government on this matter.”

In the October 2009 STIMBR newsletter (http://www.stimbr.org.nz/STIMBRNewsletter8.pdf), the Chair Gordon Hosking noted that government departments had advised they would no longer be members of STIMBR but would seek observer status due to perceived conflict of interest and “will be discussed further by the management committee.”

The same newsletter lists as its first item under “Specific areas of progress” the achievement of “Protecting methyl bromide use”, which seems an odd area of progress for a group whose name is “Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide Reduction”. Are they protecting the use of Methyl Bromide or reducing the use of Methyl Bromide?

A May 2008 newsletter stated STIMBR were “pleased to acknowledge contributions to STIMBR from organisations with a keen interest in methyl bromide reduction, but who are non-users of the fumigant. Noted in our last newsletter were Biosecurity New Zealand, Ministry of Economic Development, Scion, and Crop and Food Research.”

New research is being carried out at Canterbury University where toxicology professor Ian Shaw has been reported as saying a link had been found which involved a reaction when mixing methyl bromide with a protective chemical found in human cells.

Dr Shaw has stated the study by the Nelson Medical Officer of Health should have looked further into the rate of port deaths from motor neuron disease which was many hundreds of times higher than normal.

Mr Fleetwood says that if it is proved in future research there is a link between methyl bromide and motor neuron disease, or any other illness, then the Maritime Union will be involved in any efforts to hold employers, Government and individuals (including STIMBR members) accountable and liable for any harm to workers.

Posted in Methyl Bromide | Tagged | Comments Off

Images of the Methyl Bromide Protest in Picton and Blenheim

Images kindly supplied by Peter Menzies

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Methyl Bromide Protest in Picton and Blenheim

This report of the anti Methyl Bromide demonstrations in Picton and Blenheim first appeared in The Marlborough Express:

Protesters against the use of the toxic gas methyl bromide at Picton’s Shakespeare Bay urged the Marlborough District Council in a fiery exchange yesterday to suspend use of the gas and put in place a robust air plan.

The council, which owns the port, instead went ahead with its plan to delay any decision until the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) completed a national review of the controversial gas.

ERMA has indicated the review will be ready for public consultation next month, with a decision due next year.

Methyl bromide is used at ports around New Zealand as a quarantine and pre-shipment fumigant to kill pests. It is an ozone depleter and its use in New Zealand as a fumigant for soil has been phased out.

Its use at Port Marlborough has been steadily condemned and yesterday protesters took their anger to council after demonstrations in Picton and Blenheim.

About 100 protesters gathered at midday, many holding placards asking the council and Port Marlborough “merchants of death” to “stop poisoning our workers and families”.

Many of them then travelled to Blenheim to demonstrate in Seymour Square, opposite the council’s offices, for an hour before the 3pm council meeting.

About 50 protesters then attended the council meeting, where a fiery exchange took place between Marlborough Mayor Alistair Sowman and Soil and Health Association spokesman Steffan Browning.

In an address interrupted by jeers from protesters, Mr Sowman said he understood the concerns over use of the gas, but council had “no real evidence” of any danger to people from the fumigation.

The council was relying on the authority’s expertise to make a decision, he said.

In the meantime, Port Marlborough would continue its “robust monitoring” of gas levels.

Mr Browning said the council was a taking the easy option.

The mayor then tried to silence Mr Browning, who had broken meeting protocol by moving from the public seating to the councillors’ bench to speak.

Mr Sowman told him the meeting was not a chance for him to have a say.

“Do not worry about protocol,” Mr Browning said.

“Let me speak. You’re copping out … Follow Nelson’s lead, we want a moratorium [on methyl bromide fumigations].”

Stiff provisions in the Nelson City Council’s air-quality plan resulted in fumigation company Genera taking an appeal to the Environment Court, and that in turn led to much tighter controls around the use of methyl bromide at Port Nelson.

Councillor Gerald Hope successfully raised a motion that allowed five protesters a right of reply to the mayor on what he called a “highly charged and emotive issue”.
Ad Feedback

Environmental group Guardians of the Sounds spokesman Peter Beech said the council should suspend fumigations until Marlborough had “a robust air plan” that addressed all spray drift issues.

“If they ban methyl bromide they’ll [the log fumigators] just switch to another poisonous gas in 18 months’ time … This is wider than just methyl bromide.”

He said Shakespeare Bay needed an airtight facility, similar to one at the Nelson port, that captured the gas in filters and either recycled or destroyed it, rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.

The council had vested interests in forestry and was putting these interests ahead of the Picton community’s health and safety, said Mr Beech.

“We have the scenario of one council governing two towns. If Blenheim’s interests override Picton’s … there is no way Picton can get adequate representation.”

Protester Jim Lutherus said he was exposed to the gas while working at Nelson’s port and now had various health problems that he believed were related to that exposure.

“This year they released 10 tonnes over us. A few years down the track the kids could be sick. It is a bloody serious thing,” he said.

Port Marlborough health and safety officer Patrick Burdon said the port’s rules on the use methyl bromide were five times stricter than most authorities’, with one part per million set as the allowable amount of methyl bromide released to air.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/2878450/Methyl-bromide-activists-fire-up

Posted in Methyl Bromide | Comments Off

Methyl Bromide Rally – Picton Needs You

Public Notice

Picton Needs You — Enough is Enough!

Are we going to allow toxic gases like Methyl Bromide to continue poisoning our workers and families ?

If not – Join our rally

Thursday 17th September
12 Noon
Picton Foreshore in front of the Memorial Steps
.

12.15 pm Speakers.

1.00 pm Free supporters Bus, departs for Blenheim.

2.15 pm Meet at Seymour Square .

3.00 pm Fill the public gallery MDC public meeting, the issue is to be discussed by full council

3.30 pm Bus departs Blenheim for Picton.

LET PICTON PEOPLE POWER PREVAIL

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off

“BAN METHYL BROMIDE” bumper sticker $5

Spread the word
Join the movement
Get a bumper sticker for your wheels

Ban Methyl Bromide Bumper Sticker

Ban Methyl Bromide Bumper Sticker

Buy Now Online for only $5 including postage
Pay with Paymate Express
Pay with Paymate

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off

Submission to Foreshore and Seabed Review panel

Kia Ora koutou,

The Guardians of the Sounds would like to acknowledge Maori rights to the Foreshore and Seabed, those rights had never been extinguished through legislation, nor had it ever been purchased, the foreshore and seabed legislation was in our view a modern day act of confiscation.

Guardians have fought long and hard to protect the natural environment of the Totaranui,( Queen Charlotte Sounds.) and the culture and physical health and well being of our people.

The whole foreshore and seabed debarcle started here in Marlborough, as a result of squabbles over  unfair allocation of the seabed for aquaculture farms , this was because of the way that the MDC hearings committee had allowed themselves to be manipulated by the industry players. In other words they had allowed themselves to be corrupted.

Well after all their posturing it is happening again, the MDC have stuck a backroom deal with the  aquaculture industry, they are seeking a variation to the district plan which will get rid of the tendering process,and allow aquaculture companies to apply for private plan changes to select AMA areas.( Aquaculture Marine Areas. )    All this without public consultation.

If a company wants a farm in an area that is not designated as an AMA it can apply to the MOF’s and they will allocate them with an experimental license.

This will mean that the seabed of the Marlborough Sounds will end up being owned by large multinational companies who will monopolize the seabed , the terrible pollution that results from aquaculture farms will ruin the sounds environment and the Sounds people will be powerless to stop it.

You might well say that marine farmers don’t own the sea bed that they only have a right to occupy for a period of time, that’s correct technically, the term is usually for 25 yrs , however we have tried to get salmon farms removed when their time was up but was told that  council  could apply new  conditions, but could not remove the farms.  So once they are allocated these companies have a transferable right to the seabed in perpeturity.

The Port Company a subsidiary of the MDC have recently embarked on a course of action which will give them not ownership per say, but absolute control of the foreshore and seabed of Shakespear bay, Waikawa Bay and whatamungo Bays.

This is over allocation of boat moorings and the right to occupy the seabed. When coastal occupancy charges are introduced the MDC will be making a fortune out of the seabed allocations in the Marlborugh Sounds and Maori wont have a bar of it.

The Port Company also have plans for a massive marina development in Waikawa Bay, out over our cockle beds and are steaming ahead with these plans over top of Iwi objections.

These are all issues that need to be addressed by the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the implications are far more serious than just concentrating on public access.

Another thing to be wary of is that all NZ Port companies are council owned and their returns are very poor, any council accountant will tell you it would be far better financially for them to privatize, this would inevitably result in foreign ownership of NZ Ports.

An interesting thing was discovered during the claims process, and that was that when Picton town was purchased by The NZ Company from Te Atiawa they also purchase ownership of Picton Harbour, so back then it was acknowleged that Maori had legal ownership of the seabed.

Posted in Aquaculture, Submissions and Letters | Comments Off

Private Plan Change to create AMA Areas

Sounds property owners , Tourism operators, recreational users, Sounds property owners, tourism operators, recreational users, fishermen, divers, walkers all need to be aware of the Councils current intent to have a variation to change the Sounds plan to get rid of the current Tendering process. This will enable any company applying for an AMA area can be assured they are successful in the resource consent process that they will be granted that area.

The government have instructed local government to create AMA (aquaculture marine areas.) This would be an unpopular move, council have collaborated with the aquaculture industry and told them if they get rid of the tendering process and give them surety the industry can then apply for whatever areas they want as AMA’s (eg areas which are currently prohibited)

This will facilitate another gold rush of applications. I realise the current state of the economy is not conducive to growth but it will pick up. As soon as demand exceeds supply the private plan changes will flood in. At the moment rules in the current plan are not robust enough to regulate or do compliance properly.

Council know and has said later this year they will have a variation to rewrite the Aquaculture laws.

This is fundamentally wrong, they are going to get rid of the tendering process. This will allow industry to choose their own AMA areas and have surety. Knowing that the public won’t be able to affect the process and later after the damage is done they will have an upgrade of the Aquaculture laws.

You say that the industry need surety; the public need surety as well.

This is the cart before the horse.

Council says it is user pays and why should the public have to fund AMA applications for the benefit of industry. That sounds reasonable, unfortunately we know what the end result of these changes will be. The establishment of AMA areas should have been a process instigated by council through a public consultation round so that the public have a chance to say if, where or not at all, with this process Industry chooses and the public have to use a very expensive process using lawyers to object.

The Sounds will become one great big aquaculture farm. We will be unable to stop it, at the hearings the applicants will have a couple of lawyers, RMA consultants, landscape architect, expert witnesses and if the public cannot match their line up, and of course we cannot, the economic argument will win every time. It will allow for privatisation of our sea bed.

Continue reading

Posted in Aquaculture, Sounds Management, Submissions and Letters | Comments Off

Strategic Planning for the Marlborough Sounds

Open letter from the Pete Beech of the Guardians to the Marlborough District Council

Kia Ora,

I’m disappointed that I was unable to attend your workshop to discuss long term strategic planning of the Sounds. As you know my whanau are the sixth generation to have lived here in Totaranui, the name means that the Sounds is our Mother, she gives us birth feeds us shelters us and protects us.

She has provided generations of my whanau with livelihoods from her bountiful resources, none of them ever thought that those resources would ever run out but within our generation they have.

Marlborough people have to take ownership, and acknowledge that we and our tipuna are the ones who are responsible for the collapse and have a moral responsible to restore and enhance the natural environment.

The sounds has never been managed properly, its been a succession of mono cultures, including Maori period, sealers, whalers, commercial fishing, dredging diving. Pastoral farming, gold mining, forestry & aquaculture.

Mother nature wasn’t designed to support monocultures, she’s designed to accommodate biodiversity of hundreds of trees, plants, shrubs, birds, insects, fish, kiamoana and benthic communities.

Sooner or later all monocultures collapse, we need to learn from the lessons of the past and the only way the natural environment of the sounds can be restored given the huge pressure that it is under from population , commercial , recreation and customary fishing diving , aquaculture, forestry, commercial, shipping, recreational use and tourism is through long term Strategic planning.

Council of course needs to balance the protection of the environment against the residential rights and constraints, as well as the need to provide for economic growth and development (economic argument) so we appreciate that it is a balancing act.

However in the past the economic argument has always held precedence over the environment.

I believe that we need to regard the environment in business terms, and refer to it as our Natural Capital .

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off