Here are the arguments developed at a working meeting on Tuesday, March 12, 2019 starting at 18:00 in the hall of the Yacht Club of Tahiti in Arue [Plan]in response to the public utility survey on the proposed modification of the PGEM of Moorea. These arguments are repeated and supplemented and detailed on the document: Responses to the Public Utility Survey (long version)
Arguments of the Sailors
in response to the Public Utility Survey on the Moorea Maritime Area Management Plan
- The notion of Coastal Shelter disappears with strict application of the PGEM
- Previous information impossible. A sailboat takes at best a few hours (if not several days) to reach a mooring. Should he put himself in danger when he finds that there is no more room (return to Tahiti at night, with a tired crew...)?
- The moorings in more than 15 m. water are dangerous and impassable moorings for sailboats
- Free mooring areas on a sandy background are essential and should be allowed
- Disbalance of the east/north zones (13 moorings vs. 60 moorings) which disadvantages access from Tahiti
- Absence of sailboats (some of whom live in the lagoon) in the PGEM review process
- The quota review process is unfair: only for sailboats, no other activity. Sailboats do not even have a deliberative voice, at best an advisory voice in the Review Committee
- We would like to be able to identify a single competent authority and not several delegates
- The references to "pleasure ve[...]ssels for non-commercial purposes" endanger charter activity and assume a distinction between vessels
- We are not hostile to payment if it is proportional to the service and negotiated for all the moorings of French Polynesia or at least by navigation zones and not by dead body which makes its collection unrealistic.
- No mention of access to land (arranged pontoons) in the PGEM, which is nevertheless essential to organize a mooring and source of potential difficulties with the inhabitants on land
- We would like to see a charter of good conduct drafted and put in place so that it is known and respected by all
I think it is important to put forward in our arguments the fact that we really want to be involved in the development of this PGEM, that we do not only want to challenge everything as a whole but to be stakeholders in the discussions in the same way as the fishermen and other users of the lagoon.
Imposing moorings in areas of 25 to 30m in depth proves that boaters are not consulting by its unrealistic side.
There is a desire of the town hall to put aside the only tourism that has an acceptable carbon footprint. Indeed, moving with the wind is not (too) polluting while other tourists fly or shuttle sane. Other lagoon activities are also very carbonous, we think especially of jet skiing ...
And for the more motivated:
Exhaustive (or almost) list of observations
A much more detailed list of observations that can be transcribed in the public inquiry register, and complementing the above common core, is offered here: https://voiliers.asso.pf/2019/04/06/reponses-a-lenquete-dutilite-publique-version-longue/