Offending text

Comments

Specific boating observations

There is no justification for how wetting quota figures are determined. No scientific studies are provided that determine these figures. No recognized association of boaters has been associated with determining these figures.

They are therefore arbitrary or more likely the only stated will of the municipal team.

The justifications, methods and studies must, if they exist, be made public.

These moorings would be carried out by 30 to 40 meters deep, against a background of mediocre holding.

It is totally unaware of how to anchor a boat and the proof that boaters have not been consulted: good mooring practices are:

- good weather, good background, one person on board: 3 times the height of water

- ditto, shore crew: 5 times the height of water

- bad weather: 7 times the height of water

Sailboats carry an average of 30 to 80 metres of chain (weight limitation), which is a safe mooring capacity of about 15 metres deep.

The moorings in the middle of the two bays of Cook and Oponohu are therefore impossible, except for very large units (25 m or more) or in total flat calms. An obligation to use them would be a danger to the lives of others ...

Wetting should be chosen in other shallower areas.

The vast majority of lagoon activities are located north of Moorea.

And the majority of the imposed mooring areas are also north of Moorea...

Why does the PGEM not balance the quotas for north and south moorings?

In addition, the current distribution disadvantages sailboats coming from Tahiti, where most of the local sailboats are located.

There is no provision for the PGEM to provide for the boaters' prior information on the actual occupancy of the moorings.

How will sailboats know that the proposed anchorage is already complete?

- sailboats arriving at nightfall will wet there even if the quota is already reached

- a possible controller will be unable to determine which boats arrived last, in case of a violation of the quota

The law obviously allows for differences in rules for different situations; we must not exaggerate:

- Boating, which is not the subject of any negative remarks in the report on the experience of the PGEM for the period 2004-2013 "ELEMENTS FOR A DOCUMENT OF OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS PRIORITYS, PGEM Association, 2013" is being applied drastic measures, uncoordinated and unjustified.

- The fishing activity, whose preamble to the text of the PGEM explicitly states that the lagoon is in a state of over-fishing, is seen after 5 years of consultation simply imposed to set up a committee to propose measures, without any indication delay.

This difference in treatment is not acceptable.

At a minimum, boating needs to be treated as a fishing activity, with the establishment of a committee to make realistic proposals in terms of quotas, charters of good conduct, equipment, within a few months.

This boating-specific measure is clearly discriminatory: other lagoon activities are not subject to this requirement, without any justification. This, coupled with the municipality's publicly declared desire to remove sailboats from the lagoon, demonstrates the lack of impartiality that prevailed in the drafting of the PGEM text.

This measure must be removed.

"In order to ensure a review based on efficient consultation, the Commune (with the help of the RESCUE and INTEGRE projects) has defined a methodology for identifying the targets and actors of this revision." Clearly, this methodology (for which no practical information is given) was a failure, because it did not identify the AVP (the only association representing boaters in French Polynesia since 1981), nor for that matter the Yacht Club of Tahiti or the Tahitian sailing federation, also impacted by the PGEM.

It can be concluded that the measures concerning boaters were "studyed" without them: consultation on this level was therefore not efficient or non-existent.

The municipality has finally agreed to participate in an informal information meeting organized by the AVP on June 16, 2017, the final report of the PGEM is dated June 22, 2017.

The AVP requests to be associated with the review of the MMP.

The favourable opinion subject to the Moorea-Maiao town hall was issued on 13 September 2018: according to the press, the mayor sets out a position totally opposed to the presence of sailboats in the Moorea lagoon.

The Government's stated policy ["Objective 2: to develop boating and cruise activities" (actions 29 and 30). Similarly, the segments of water tourism (pleasure, charter, yachting and cruising), despite a notable development over the last 5 years, still have a very significant growth potential.... (DEBAT OF BUDGETARY ORIENTATION PREALABLE TO VOTE OF BUDGET PRIMITIF FOR EXERCICE 2018, REPORT OF GOVERNMENT, October 11, 2017) is to further increase the presence of sailboats in Polynesian waters. The Windward Islands (so necessarily Tahiti and Moorea) will therefore see even more sailboats if the wishes of the Government come true.

How is it envisaged by the PGEM to bring these two clearly irreconcilable positions together?

The 2004 version of the PGEM allowed fairground mooring on sand bottoms, and rightly so, since it is widely recognized that anchors do not do damage to the sand bottoms. This possibility no longer exists in this version of the revised EMeP, without a single substantiated justification for this decision.

This possibility of fairground mooring, in reasonable areas, must be restored.

Just as the PGEM rightly plans to preserve access to the sea, it must also provide for access to land in mooring areas: for safety reasons (approach of motorized annexes near possible bathing areas) , for simple economic reasons (crew access to shops, bars and restaurants, land-based tourism providers, paid land services (garbage, water, sanitation, etc.).

This must be included in the PGEM text.

While boating is the subject of several pages in the pGEM text alone, it is not entitled to a single representative with a deliberative voice:

Boaters ask for a representative on the standing committee, with a deliberative vote.

Boaters are not opposed to the principle of a levy. They simply ask to be truly associated when establishing its terms and conditions, whether on a local basis (depending on the services provided), or on a global basis (permit to circulate ...).

"These zones aim to organize and manage recreational vessels for personal use, i.e. for leisure or sport and for non-commercial purposes ... ».

Given the vagueness of the writing, two readings can be made:

- commercial boating (charters, AirBNB rentals, etc.) cannot use organised areas, and is de facto totally excluded from the Moorea lagoon since there is no article dealing with its case in the rest of the PGEM text;

- commercial boating is free of all constraints, the limitations set in the text apply only to amateur boating. De facto, charters and other AirBNB can wet anywhere (or almost) on sand bottoms without limitation of duration.

It is therefore not possible to read: commercial boating has the same constraints as amateur boating. This discrimination is questionable, these two forms of boating generating the same problems vis-à-vis the lagoon in the context of this PGEM ...

Public inquiry procedure

Access to the observation register:

The observation register is not available to the public at all times, but only during the few and short physical presences of the Investigating Commissioner in each location.

This is totally unusual in public inquiries. This is contrary to good public participation in the investigation.

What were the reasons why the register was permanently made available?

Dematerialization of the public inquiry:

While the Government wants a more efficient administration and closer to citizens, through the use of the Internet, the public inquiry of the PGEM of Moorea is not available on the Internet, while there are "turnkey" tools to do so.

Why is this possibility, allowing simple, complete and permanent access to the file and register, not implemented, since the legislation does not seem to oppose it?

And

Article 1

The public inquiry file is not complete:

Order 558 MLA of 21/1/2019, Article 2, indicates the composition of the file: "Exhibit 1, Presentation Report (...)". The presentation report, in Article 1, speaks of five maps to define the PGEM entirely: therefore, "the map of general vocations that sets the broad orientations of the lagoon space" is missing. The absence of this card does not allow the citizen to judge whether the 4 cards provided are in agreement with the missing card.

Why did you fail to attach this card to the investigation file?

The public inquiry file is not complete:

The favourable opinion subject to the Moorea-Maiao town hall was issued on 13 September 2018: it should already be included in the investigation file (and/or the register) and be consultable by the citizens: this was still not the case on the date of the (today). It is also not available via the Internet.

What are the legal (or not) reasons that have prevented the inclusion of this document, which is extremely important for the complete information of the public on the future of certain lagoon activities that may be called into question as soon as the final publication of the PGEM, in the public inquiry file?

The public inquiry file is not complete:

Appendix 1 refers to many documents via "hyperlinks", which are obviously not active in a document ... "paper." The file submitted to the public inquiry should therefore also contain these documents, the consultation of which seemed important enough to the drafter of the MSP submission file to take the trouble to link them computer.

Why arethese documents not attached to the file?

The public inquiry file is not complete:

Article 4 states: "Transitional provisions: Administrative authorizations issued prior to the entry into force of this text and which do not comply with it remain applicable until the date of the XXX. ».

The absence of the date of the XXX, highlighted in yellow in the document, prevents the citizen from making an informed judgment on the application and possible consequences of this provision (there is an essential substantive difference in the sense that Article 4 would take depending on whether one would remember the date of 31/12/2019 or that of 31/12/2029 (equivalent to: no compliance will be required by example , by example , by which one would be required by the date of 31/12/2019).

How can the citizen issue an informed opinion on the document presented to the investigation without this crucial information?

Why is it not permissible to obtain a copy of the investigation file (in full paper or computer version)?

On the other hand, it is allowed to make a photograph, but not a photocopy.

While in other public inquiry files in French Polynesia the precise and complete address of the investigating commissioner appears in the ministerial decree and in the notices circulated by press, here it had to be specifically requested by email.

This omission is in addition to the other observations above and does not facilitate the expression of citizens' opinions.

Presentation folder - Items not specifically for pleasure

The term "competent authorities" is used repeatedly in the text of the PGEM.

It is essential to make it clear in a paragraph to add that the Municipality of Moorea is never included in this term, which will therefore only concern agencies of the country .

The definition of the PGEM limit increases from the bathymetric depth of 70 m to the distance of 250 metres from the reef ridge. Nowhere is the reasons for this change of limits indicated.

Again, the public's information is incomplete.

Is the 3-metre inalienable coastal strip included in the MLP area of responsibility?

After 14 years of existence, and 5 years of revision, the proposed PGEM text is unable to define the management system to come: the municipality of Moorea is only "identified" as a possible manager! While there are potentially other possible solutions (private structure, association structure, country body, etc.), the file proposed for public inquiry leaves in the most complete blur this part essential to the effective implementation of the I'm PGEM.

Worse, the solution of the common manager "will be discussed with the government": what if the government refuses? No fallback solution, no time limit is indicated.

It is therefore difficult for the public to comment on such a dislocated issue.

The text of the PGEM is therefore notoriously incomplete, and must be taken up and finalised.

"If there is a disagreement over the appointment [le maire]of a member, it appoints a member." This drafting would allow the mayor to designate the entire office in case of multiple disagreements ...

Why not let the Committee decide, not the Mayor?

The "frequented areas", where the speed is limited to 5 knots, are not defined: the word "frequented" is not explained without the slightest ambiguity, which allows all interpretations, and therefore the inapplicability of this rule.

It has to be totally clear, it is a major security issue.

The protection zone for underwater networks (anchor ban) is not defined in metres in the text of the PGEM, again entailing risks to the safety of these cables.

This information must be explicitly included in the text of the PGEM.

While the PGEM has a 15-year experience, and a 5-year review period, it has not been possible to set the constraints for the "fishing" activity in this PGEM: only the establishment of a committee to make proposals within an undefined time frame is envisaged. This is clearly a blank cheque for this activity, and an encouragement to overfishing denounced in the introduction of the document. This is what the Territorial Chamber of Auditors says in its 2017 report on the country's environmental policy: "Experience has shown that The PGA and PGEM, as they are designed, are more of the tools for organising space and less protection of the natural environment."

Nowhere does the file presented to the public inquiry address the issue of funding: the public (taxpayer) is absolutely not informed of how much the MMIS will cost, or how it will be financed! Total uncertainty about the future manager does not improve things.

For example, the RESCUE study (2016, not attached to the public inquiry file) on paid moorings concludes that it is very difficult to simply balance the accounts for the collection of this possible recipe...

Why is there no encryption element in the submission file submitted to public inquiry? Will the people of Moorea be the only ones paying for this PGEM? The investigation file is incomplete.

Article 8 of the 2004 MLP has disappeared (it provided for the possibility of an exceptional revision, other than the 10-year review)

We call for his recovery

"Any new authorization to land and take off on the aircraft lagoon is prohibited. »

Without being a specialist in the matter, this formulation seems largely tainted with illegality...