Hokianga Accord Hui Report
Naumai
Marae
20
- 21 July 2006
Maori Customary Tools
Graeme Morrell, Pou Hononga, Ministry of Fisheries
Graeme Morrell gave the hui an overview of the customary management tools available to Maori, where they are currently located and any pending applications. As of 2005 the Ministry had appointed between 190 and 205 kaitiaki, the bulk of these being in the South Island. MFish were working hard with tangata whenua in the North Island to increase their numbers. These kaitiaki were part of the process to provide tangata whenua with the opportunity to have input and participation into local fisheries management.
The rohe moana gazetted in the Bay of Islands, by Nga Hapu o Taiamai Ki Te Marangai, was the first under the Kaimoana Regulations[1]. Ngati Rehia established this area in 1999, in conjunction with the Ministry. The area extends from the northern Bay of Islands area, up to Takou Bay and out to the 200 nautical mile limit. There are currently 14 kaitiaki in Judah Heihei’s team.
Graeme explained that kaitiaki needed to identify the areas within their rohe where they wanted to implement customary tools such as mataitai, taiapure or section 186A temporary closures.
The gazetting of the rohe moana is the first stage in the process. MFish expect that if there was going to be any objections from other iwi or hapu, to the area nominated as rohe moana, then these objections were usually raised at the gazettal stage. The Ministry has an obligation to facilitate and work through the objections with the various iwi/hapu to resolve any outstanding issues.
The MFish Spatial Allocations team become involved once tangata whenua have decided where they want to implement customary management tools. This team and the Senior Fisheries Management Area (SFMA) team help tangata whenua decide what tools best suit their objectives, i.e. Mataitai, taiapure or a temporary closure.
The Ministry also have an obligation to help with the consultation aspect within the rohe, to assist tangata whenua to achieve the outcomes they want.
Marangai Taiamai had waited seven years to get any MFish support for their rohe management plan. This delay had meant they had exhausted all their scarce resources. Not only that, many of those involved had become totally disillusioned with the whole implementation process. The Ministry had a responsibility to address this issue.
MFish accept that they were not ready to engage with these kaitiaki and did not provide the support for tangata whenua when they asked for MFish input in the late 1990’s [2].
The Ministry were asked to explain their responsibilities in educating the public about Maori customary management tools. This was pertinent as Marangai Taiamai’s aspirations for their rohe was thwarted by objections from the public.
Jonathan Peacey explained that there was a formal process for establishing mataitai. That process was set out in the regulations and the Ministry team followed the process “scrupulously”. The process included establishing meetings with other stakeholders and also involved applying a ‘prevent’ test to determine if the plan will have an undue effect on existing stakeholders that would prevent them from landing their catch entitlement.
Commercial fishing is automatically prohibited from a mataitai. The mataitai management group could approve the reinstatement of commercial fishing, with some restrictions. What the group could not do is only provide approval to nominated fishermen. Fishing methods could be specified, within the plan.
The Spatial Allocations team provide their advice on the management plan, to the Minister. The Minister either approves or disapproves the plan based on that information.
A taiapure exists in the Waikare Inlet but the management group had not finalised a plan. MFish acknowledge they will be initiating dialogue with the group to establish who they are and what their aspirations were for this area in the Bay of Islands. Some of the original applicants are not involved any longer, for a variety of reasons.
MFish were advised it was important for everyone to learn lessons from Marangai Taiamai’s experience, as the local fishers and boaties had objected vociferously to the original mataitai plan. Successful implementation of these customary management tools was dependent on public support. Having discussions at Hokianga Accord hui would facilitate greater understanding amongst Pakeha, that Maori have the tools and are keen to work with the public to implement them.
Customary management tools were not a threat but were for the benefit of all non-commercial fishers, irrespective of race.
Graeme explained the different management tools operating around the North Island and offered copies of the area map to the hui. This was the same document that MFish supplied at the April hui.
An updated version of this document is also online in the Hokianga Accord reference section.
TOP
 |
Question
and Answers
The first question
related to the rohe moana for Te Uri o Hau. The Ministry had
been advised that Environ Holdings had been nominated as the
body to negotiate with regarding the rohe. MFish were still
waiting to be advised of the names of the kaitiaki before
the gazettal notice could be submitted.
There was a lot of
concern regarding objections, which were effectively stalling
the establishment of customary management tools. |
Jonathan explained that the
grounds for objections were quite specific. The Minister could still
approve a management tool even if objections existed, due to the
‘prevent’ test.
Application of certain criteria meant the Ministry could determine whether commercial interests would still be able to catch their quota within the Quota Management Area (QMA) and recreational fishers had sufficient access to catch their allowance. If these opportunities existed the Minister could approve tangata whenua’s application.
Once rohe moana had been established and objections had been worked through, the process was much more straightforward, and plans could be implemented a lot quicker.
The question was raised regarding the ‘race for space’. Rohe moana has traditionally been smaller areas than QMAs. The first area tool to be implemented was likely to pass the ‘prevent’ test (or adverse effect test for marine reserves). As more area tools are implemented within that same QMA a ‘race for space’ is on.
Tangata whenua who were slow to get their proposals underway would miss out purely on the basis of other areas being nominated as closures or limited take areas. Jonathan admitted this was concerning the Ministry and that “there are significant discussions going on about that”.
A series of questions was put to the Ministry
- Does this process pit the Department of Conservation against Maori who are seeking to get mataitai or taiapure within the same QMA?
- With every successful marine reserve, is DoC limiting the amount of space left for tangata whenua to implement their area management tools?
- If we consider how far progressed DoC are in their marine reserve process and compare that with Maori, who are just getting organised in area management, there is a ‘race for space’. The Ministry of Fisheries had been slow in implementing the customary legislation and providing tangata whenua with opportunities. DoC now had an unfair ‘start’ compared with Maori. How would this be addressed fairly?
Jonathan agreed that there is a limited amount of coastline that can be used for different purposes. He also noted the different legislation that is applied to area management, namely, the Fisheries Act 1996 and the Marine Reserves Act 1971.
For further clarification, the Ministry were asked which legislation ‘gives way’ to the other, if the two interact for the same space. Jonathan advised that this was one of the reasons why the Government had initiated the Oceans Policy project, “for exactly that reason”.
Following on from this comment, the Ministry were asked when they first became aware of this ‘race for space’, this conflict of interest in the same coastal area?
Ministry advised there was a “general
realisation”that there were competing interests for coastal
areas but could not specify when MFish was aware the issue specifically
existed.
MFish was also asked whether they had advised tangata whenua that unless they got organised quickly they would miss out on implementing their management tools due to others around them establishing their own management areas, customary and marine reserves.
MFish did not get to answer this question but Sonny advised the hui, that in his opinion, the Marine Reserves Act had to give way to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its promise of ‘undisturbed possession of taonga’.
Particular mention was made of the effect of marine reserves on the Ngati Wai people who have more marine reserves in their rohe moana than any other iwi.
Once a mataitai or taiapure had been established, Ministry was asked to explain what further part they played in the management of that area.
Stephanie Hill explained that the management group could determine what they wanted to achieve from the implementation of the customary tool and propose bylaws to meet those objectives. In the case of a mataitai, there is no commercial fishing initially and any bylaws apply to both recreational and customary fishers. MFish retains its responsibility for compliance.
It was pointed out to the hui that, while the legislation provides for the Minister to be the final decision maker, the reality was that MFish’s advice to the Minister was more likely to determine the outcome of the decision than any independent decision made by the Minister. Whilst Ministers come and go, the officials within the Ministry remained and thereby provided continuity of the way MFish manages the fisheries.
Much of the discussion had focussed on the customary management tools. Marine reserves were suggested as an alternative conservation tool, but the hui rejected this, on the grounds that marine reserves do not address:
- Human behaviour that has an adverse impact on the environment
- Overfishing
- Sedimentation and land run-off
- The extra effort of displaced fishers from another closed area competing with local fishers.
It seemed that marine reserves had been given priority by the very nature of the existence of a 10% target of marine protected areas by 2010. If this was so, this meant that Maori do not know how much space they are competing for amongst themselves, for the implementation of customary management tools in their rohe, let alone with DoC.
The Ministry accepted that:
- The existence of a defined target could suggest a form of ‘priority’ but noted the 10% applies to marine protection and is not restricted to marine reserves; and
- The marine reserves legislation has been in existence longer than the customary regulations and therefore has been used more often.
The hui asked MFish to explain what more they could do to help tangata whenua understand the regulations, the marine protection tools that exist now and how MFish were going to help Maori to implement the marine protection tools, for the benefit of future generations.
MFish agreed they could do more to help tangata whenua. The Ministry:
- Had produced information recently and provided comparisons of the various tools, in these documents
- Was considering the development of a manual to assist tangata whenua, a ‘users guide’, on how to make applications for customary management tools: and
- Had also initiated a training programme for kaitiaki to educate them on the tools available and how the process works.
Muka Hohneck of Ngati Manuhiri and Ngati Rehua felt encouraged by the existence of the Hokianga Accord as another voice for Maori customary and recreational fishing. MFish was asked where the resources were for tangata whenua to manage the customary areas, as it was a struggle for Maori to participate meaningfully unless they had adequate support for their kaitiaki and management plans.
Ministry was also asked for an update on the application for “concurrence” on DoC’s marine reserve proposal for Aotea (Great Barrier). Given the concerns of tangata whenua, Ngati Rehua, Ngati Wai, Ngati Manuhiri, the island community, plus recreational and commercial fishers.
Jonathan explained the Minister of Conservation had asked the Minister of Fisheries for his concurrence (approval) for the proposed marine reserve. MFish was currently developing advice to give to the Fisheries Minister on whether or not he should agree with the proposed marine reserve.
Ministry Information
The hui was supplied a document outlining the status of applications for eleven mataitai and two taiapure currently being considered.
An overview of the mataitai reserves process and answers to frequently asked questions was provided to the hui.
Also available at the hui was the latest MFish bulletin covering the sustainability round, regulatory round, regulation review process, Shared Fisheries Policy project update, Te Uri o Hau oyster reserve regulations for the Kaipara, northern scallop catch limits and the Maui Dolphin Threat Management Plan.
TOP |
