French Polynesia President Announces Highly Protected Marine Area
President Moetai Brotherson pledged to protect nearly 23 percent of French Polynesia's waters.
French Polynesia's president has announced his administration will establish one of the world's largest networks of highly protected marine areas (MPAs).
The highly protected areas will safeguard 220,000 square kilometres of remote waters near the Society Islands and 680,000 square kilometers near the Gambier Islands.
Speaking at the United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice, France, President Moetai Brotherson pledged to protect nearly 23 percent of French Polynesia's waters.
'In French Polynesia, the ocean is much more than a territory – it's the source of life, culture, and identity,' he said.
'By strengthening the protection of Tainui Atea (the existing marine managed area that encompasses all French Polynesian waters) and laying the foundations for future marine protected areas… we are asserting our ecological sovereignty while creating biodiversity sanctuaries for our people and future generations.'
Once implemented, this will be one of the world's single-largest designations of highly protected ocean space in history.
Access will be limited, and all forms of extraction, such as fishing and mining, will be banned.
The government is also aiming to create a highly protected artisanal fishing zone that extends about 28 kilometres from the Austral, Marquesas, and Gambier islands and 55-and-a-half kilometres around the Society Islands. Fishing in that zone will be limited to traditional single pole-and-line catch from boats less than 12 metres in length.
Together, the zones encompass an area about twice the size of continental France.
President Brotherson also promised to create additional artisanal fishing zones and two more large, highly protected MPAs within the next year near the Austral and Marquesas islands.
He also committed to bolster conservation measures within the remainder of French Polynesia's waters.
Donatien Tanret, who leads Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy's work in French Polynesia, said local communities have made it clear that they want to see stronger protections that reflect both scientific guidance and their ancestral culture for future generations.
'These protections and commitments to future designations are a powerful example of how local leadership and traditional measures such as rāhui can address modern challenges.'
Samoa announces MPAs
Before the conference, Samoa adopted a legally binding Marine Spatial Plan – a step to fully protect 30 percent and ensure sustainable management of 100 percent of its ocean.
The plan includes the establishment of nine new fully protected MPAs, covering 36,000 square kilometres of ocean.
Toeolesulsulu Cedric Schuster, Samoa's Minister for Natural Resources and Environment, said Samoa is a large ocean state and its way of life is under increased threat from issues including climate change and overfishing.
'This Marine Spatial Plan marks a historic step towards ensuring that our ocean remains prosperous and healthy to support all future generations of Samoans – just as it did for us and our ancestors.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Six Māori words spark a debate over how children learn to read
The removal of a learn-to-read book has infuriated teachers, experts and parents – and may prove a political misstep for National, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Educationalists call book withdrawal an overreaction The government's decision to remove the learn-to-read book At the Marae from classroom circulation has triggered a storm of criticism from teachers, principals and literacy experts. The book, designed for five-year-olds, includes six Māori words – marae, karanga, wharenui, koro, hongi and karakia – which officials argued sat uneasily within the structured literacy model now mandated in schools. Yet literacy researcher Professor Gail Gillon, who developed the wider Best Start Literacy Programme, told RNZ's John Gerritsen there was 'absolutely no evidence' children found the reader confusing. 'And in fact, our data would suggest the opposite.' Teachers have been scathing too. Writing in The Spinoff, Auckland teacher Tansy Oliver calls the decision 'insulting to our children, our teachers and our nation', warning it risks deepening the alienation Māori have long felt within the education system. A political misstep? The reaction hasn't been confined to classrooms. In the Sunday Star-Times (paywalled), editor Tracy Watkins argues the government is playing 'culture-war politics with children's learning', positioning itself alongside its more extreme coalition partners rather than the moderate voters who kept John Key in power for nearly a decade – and whom National needs in order to win next year. The removal of six kupu Māori is, Watkins says, a misjudgment that damages National more than it helps. For education minister Erica Stanford – widely seen as one of National's more centrist, liberal-friendly figures and even touted as a future leader – the row looks like an unforced error. Watkins' assessment is cutting: 'It's hard to know which will hurt National most. Being seen as aligning itself with the bigots, or making itself a laughing stock.' The structured literacy defence Stanford has been clear that the policy is not an outright ban on te reo, noting that Māori words still appear in other Ready to Read titles and are taught explicitly from Year 2 onwards. But she argues that structured literacy – rolled out nationally from the start of this year – relies on tightly sequenced phonics instruction, and kupu Māori fall outside that progression. As Oliver explains, because words such as karakia or wharenui cannot be decoded (sounded out) at the five-year-old level, they are categorised as 'heart words' that must be memorised. In Stanford's view, limiting their presence in Year 1 decodable readers is consistent with literacy science. Stanford has also pointed to an apparent parallel, reports Gerritsen: English words do not feature in readers for te reo Māori immersion schools, so it makes sense, she said, to likewise avoid Māori words in English-medium early readers. But Māori educator Rawiri Wright said that's not a fair comparison, since mainstream schools are supposed to be places where all official languages are recognised. Does te reo even need structured literacy? Beyond the current row lies another question: whether structured literacy is the right tool for teaching te reo at all. In a Conversation article, education academics Brian Tweed and Pania Te Maro criticise the 'blanket application' of the approach in kura Māori, noting that because Māori spelling is entirely phonetic, children don't face the same decoding challenges as English learners. 'Instead, pushing structured literacy into Māori-medium schools seems to be driven by an ideological commitment to this teaching approach rather than an actual need,' they write. The pair also point to the Waitangi Tribunal's 1986 declaration that 'te reo Māori is a taonga (treasure) that Māori must have control of. It's for Māori to decide on changes and innovations in the teaching and learning of the language.' That principle underscores why this debate has become so fraught: it is not only about reading pedagogy, but about who has the authority to shape the future of the Māori language.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Do those who manage rugby want to see a crowd? I have listened to RNZ with growing concern
What is wrong with the people responsible for such genuinely awful planning? Had they started the early fixture a bit later and ensured a wait between games of, say, just 15 minutes before a 4.35pm kickoff for the NPC game, the crowd of probably 12,000 or so people would likely have stayed and enjoyed both games. The vast majority of the significant crowd immediately left at the first game's final whistle and the remaining crowd by the time of the next kickoff, as seen on TV, was the proverbial 'two men and a dog'! This was the first time we had attended at Eden Park for many years. We won't be back. In retrospect, it was 'the smart move' to leave as soon as the schools game ended as, when I gave up in disgust and turned the telly off, Taranaki were giving Auckland a good old-fashioned thrashing. Roger Hawkins, Herne Bay. Covid inquiry I am wondering why the citizenry of New Zealand are surprised when some politicians will not attend the Royal Commission on the Covid response. We elect our leaders to act on our behalf. Normally, everything is transparent and follows due process. A pandemic is an interruption to the normal business of a country; it requires instant, sometimes repugnant outcomes for the people and makes the deliverer of the message very unpopular. Being told to isolate and how and when we may leave our homes is anathema to New Zealanders but in the instance of a pandemic of the severity of Covid, it was necessary. Decision-makers did do what they thought right at that time, with what expert information and scientific knowledge was available to them. Why is the 'rightness or wrongness' of those decisions now being queried? It was over and above the parameters of normal governance. It was a pandemic! Life-threatening. A once-in-a-lifetime event. Yes, money was spent. How much and for how long was those leaders' decision to make. It is not now the privilege of today's political cohort to question the minutiae of detail of the whys and wherefores. New Zealand did not have coffins lining the streets. Perhaps our island nation was saved by the unpopular isolation tactics returning citizens endured but they can be proud they contributed to the safety of all. Do not turn this to a dollar mentality when measuring outcomes. A democratic society pays what is necessary to house and feed its criminals; provides succour to the needy, cares for the elderly – why pillory the decision-makers for money spent saving the nation in the time of a pandemic? Robyn Tubb, Millwater. RNZ's decline As a former senior NZBC announcer, I've listened to RNZ National's decline with growing concern. Richard Sutherland's recent criticism (Media Insider, August 16) confirms what many listeners know: standards have slipped dramatically. Today's RNZ presenters gabble through scripts, mangle pronunciations ('flowan' for 'flown,' 'pardy' for 'party'), and rush through te reo Māori with obvious discomfort. This undermines both our official language's mana and RNZ's credibility as New Zealand's public broadcaster. The problem runs deeper than technical issues. RNZ has drifted toward commercial radio tactics. There is much gabbling and puerile banter, chasing ratings rather than serving its unique public mission. But public radio shouldn't sound like The Rock or ZM, it should offer something better. Excellence means clear, accurate presentation with proper pronunciation of both English and te reo Māori. It means substance over filler, cultural competence and an authentically New Zealand voice that maintains professional standards without stuffiness. The solution isn't complicated: establish clear broadcasting standards, provide ongoing professional development and create a culture valuing craft over ratings. Experienced broadcasters should mentor newcomers, passing on both technical skills and understanding of public radio's role. RNZ National should be the best of New Zealand broadcasting; thoughtful, substantial and respectful of audience intelligence. The talent exists; what's needed is leadership willing to set and maintain standards. Our public broadcaster should make us proud, not require excuses. James Gregory, Parnell.
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Mediawatch: Palestinian Statehood Push Vexes Media
Article – RNZ An media debate over New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood was partly overshadowed by party political rows and claims it would only be a gesture. , Mediawatch Presenter 'New Zealand is fast becoming one of the last Western democracies to recognise Palestine as a state,' Corin Dann told Morning Report listeners on RNZ National last Tuesday. While there was a bit of cognitive dissonance in fast becoming one of the last, the roll call of those who have been more decisive was comprehensive. 'Australia, Canada, the UK, France, and 147 other countries have made similar declarations as the world responds to the ongoing destruction and famine in Gaza,' he added. Just a couple of weeks ago, news organisations were prevaricating over whether they could say 'famine' was happening in Gaza or not, but not so much now. The previous evening, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, put out a statement that said the government would 'carefully weigh up its position … over the next month'. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told reporters recognition was 'not a race'. But back on Morning Report on Tuesday, former prime minister Helen Clark told Dann she thought it really was urgent. 'I've seen victims of the war in the hospital in a nearby town. I've seen the trucks turned around carrying food and medicines which were unable to enter Gaza. This is a catastrophic situation. And here we are in New Zealand somehow arguing some fine point about whether we should be adding our voice,' she said, after a trip to the Rafah border crossing. But in the media here, party political tensions were overshadowing debate about New Zealand's official response. When Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick condemned what she saw as government's spinelessness in the House, it led the ZB news soon after – followed by points of order about MPs accessories from ACT leader David Seymour. And Swarbrick's eventual expulsion led TVNZ's 1News at Six soon after that. But on Newstalk ZB, the hosts overwhelmingly declared that declaring Palestinian statehood was just a gesture. 'Two groups determined to wipe each other off the face of the earth will never stop until one wins. Definitively recognising one as a state will not make a jot of difference,' Mike Hosking insisted on his breakfast show on Tuesday. Later on her ZB Drive show, Heather du Plessis-Allan reckoned it was just a distraction – one that had already distracted the media. 'For every minute and every column inch that we dedicate to talking about whether we should or should not support the state of Palestine in September, we are not spending … talking about getting aid into kids who need food,' she said. 'I'm sorry, but recognising Palestine right now while this war between Hamas and Israel is ongoing is rewarding Hamas for what they did on October 7th,' she added. Half an hour later, du Plessis-Allan's partner Barry Soper backed her up. 'Is that going to stop the war? Is Hamas going to finally put down the arms. They can see it as a badge of honour if they did do that.' Neither of them were convinced by Child Fund chief executive and politics pundit Josie Pagani. 'The only way that we're going to get any movement forward on this is to recognise a two state solution,' she said on the same show 24 hours earlier. 'The purpose of recognising Palestinian statehood is not to instantly magic up a happy ending to the misery in Gaza. It's to preserve the viability of a two-state solution,' The Herald's senior political correspondent Audrey Young wrote in response. Clark had also told Morning Report that she'd just been talking to Egypt's foreign minister about plans. 'There's elaborate plans which don't include Hamas. So I think it's all a bit of a red herring now to be talking about Hamas. There are credible plans for moving forward,' Clark said The same day University of Auckland international relations professor Maria Amoudian – on Jesse Mulligan's Afternoons show on RNZ National – said Palestinian statehood would not just be symbolic. 'It would mean they would get a seat at the United Nations. A better voice in UNESCO, diplomatic relations among countries which could evolve into economic support and trade. Also legal rights over territorial waters, airspace and sovereignty over their own territory,' she said. On RNZ's Midday Report the same day, Otago University professor Robert Patman said that our government's current position not only 'lacked moral clarity,' it was actually inconsistent with our own recent actions and statements. International law was being 'trashed on a daily basis by Israel,' Patman said. 'In Gaza, cameramen and journalists from Al Jazeera were assassinated by the Netanyahu government. It raises issues which go right to the heart of our identity as a country. I think most Kiwis are very clear. They want to see a world based on rules.' Meanwhile, political reporters here sensed that we were international laggards on this because partner parties in the Coalition were putting the handbrake on. In his online newsletter Politik, Richard Harman pointed out ACT MP Simon Court had said in Parliament there cannot be progress towards a Palestinian state until all Israeli hostages are returned and Hamas is dismantled. He said it was also the position of the foreign minister, though Peters himself had not actually said that. And Luxon had said on Monday Hamas held hostages that should be released. 'We are thinking carefully about all of the different sides … rather than trying to prove our own moral superiority over each other, which the likes of Chlöe Swarbrick have just been doing,' ACT's David Seymour told ZB when asked if ACT was holding up Cabinet support for recognition of Palestine. Seymour gave a similar response to the Parliamentary Press Gallery reporters. It was later posted to ACT's YouTube channel as 'David versus the media. David Seymour WARNS against rushing Palestine'. He repeated his worry that Hamas might benefit. But when a reporter pointed out a Palestinian state means more than just Gaza, and that Hamas doesn't control the West Bank, that episode of 'David versus the Media' came to an end. 'Right now everyone is focused on Gaza. And no one, if you recognise any kind of state – is going to think that this is about the West Bank. That's where the image of every country is going to be judged,' he said. 'Talk to you about domestic politics tomorrow,' Seymour said in closing. On TVNZ's 1News, Simon Mercep highlighted another practical problem. 'All five permanent members of the UN Security Council. – America, Russia, China, France and the UK – have to agree on statehood. 'Israel's major ally, the US, does not agree. It used its veto as recently as last year.' It wasn't much mentioned in the media this past week, but the veto right is something that New Zealand has long opposed. Back in 2012, foreign minister Murray McCully called on the five permanent members to give up their veto rights issues involving atrocities. He said the inability to act in Syria had 'cost the UN credibility in the eyes of fair-minded people around the world'. Three years later, he said that the Security Council was failing to prevent conflict – and during a stint chairing the Security Council later that year (when New Zealand was a non permanent member for two years) McCully criticised it again. The government paid for New Zealand journalists to travel to the UN at the time to watch sessions chaired by New Zealand. In late 2016, New Zealand co-sponsored a UN resolution that said Israeli settlements in the occupied territories had no legal validity – and were dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-state solution.' The resolution passed, Israel withdrew its ambassador here – and the incoming President Trump said 'things will be different in the UN' after his first inauguration. 'The position we adopted is totally in line with our long established policy on the Palestinian question,' McCully said at the time, stuck to his guns. Back then he also said he hoped the attitude of Israel would eventually soften. Eight years later, it's the attitude of New Zealand's government – and its clarity on two-state solution – that seems to have diluted.
