Hui Report

Hokianga Accord Hui Report

Naumai Marae
20 - 21 July 2006

Page Four
	(PDF 895Kb)
<< << Previous page	Next page >> >>
Contents
Fisheries Plans
Shared Fisheries Policy Project
Fisheries Plans
Jonathan Peacey, National MFish Manager, Fisheries Operations
The hui was given a brief update of what progress the Ministry of Fisheries had made in regards to both Ministry-led Fisheries Plans and stakeholder-led Fisheries Plans. At the last hui Jonathan presented an overview of MFish’s process. Details are online, in the last hui report.

Fisheries Plans are expected to provide a more integrated approach to MFish management, allowing research, compliance and management to be thought of in an overall manner rather than as separate aspects. This would allow the Ministry to demonstrate they are spending money on specific activities to achieve specific objectives for fisheries.

“Once a Fisheries Plans is approved, it will be a formal agreement between parties to manage the fishery in a particular way. And it’s approved under section 11A [4], by the Minister, it will actually bind the Ministry to provide services and advise the Minister in a certain way. The idea is to give greater certainty. They also provide a formal opportunity for stakeholders to have input at the earliest development, consistent with what we are looking to through the iwi regional forums. Much earlier, rather than you providing your views on proposals that we have already come up. ”

Proof of Concept Plans

Over the past year the Ministry had been working on three ‘proof of concept’ Fisheries Plans, for Southern Blue Whiting, Foveaux Strait oysters and Coromandel scallop fisheries. MFish staff had been working with stakeholders since November 2005 to develop these plans; Stephanie Hill has been part of that process and offered a comment:

“The level of engagement has varied and that’s for good reasons. People are very busy. There has been a different level of interest in participating. That’s fine and we accept that.”

MFish has been using these plans to refine the Fisheries Plans process. The fisheries chosen were “relatively discreet” with a limited number of stakeholders, were quite different so various approaches had been used for each process.

Three draft Fisheries Plans had now been developed and needed further refinement. The drafts had been given to stakeholders for comment.  MFish wanted to learn from their process, what had worked and what had not worked so well. While limited, the development of the plans had provided MFish with some ideas on how to improve the process for other fisheries. There had been some benefits of working closer with stakeholders and tangata whenua on these plans.

The Ministry was working towards developing Fisheries Plans for all fisheries. Status quo plans will describe, in one document, how each fishery is being currently managed. This would provide a good basis to be used in the future. MFish had not finalised the final format of the plans but it is “work in progress”.

The big challenge for the Ministry was to ensure that customary fisheries issues are appropriately reflected in the plans, along with other fishing interests. MFish envisage the fisheries plans integrating with iwi fisheries plans so there would need to be some coordination with MFish staff.

Stakeholder - led Fisheries Plans “Section 11A of the Fisheries Act provides for Ministerially approved Fisheries Plans. The Act is not specific about who should prepare a plan. There is quite a bit of flexibility there.” Up until two years ago the Ministry's approach had been that MFish would prepare stock strategies, very basic plans describing the fishery and how they were managing it. MFish left stakeholders to develop their own plans to add value to the fishery.

MFish thought tangata whenua and other stakeholders would develop their own plans.

With the change of Minister and Chief Executive the emphasis had now gone into developing one plan and including tangata whenua and other stakeholders in the process. Jonathan is pleased with the more integrated, inclusive approach to Fisheries Plans, to get more value from the fisheries. Those values included customary, recreational and commercial values.  

There are various stakeholder Fisheries Plans in place or underway:

• Rig 7 (SPO7) top of the South Island – plan had been approved
• Challenger scallop Fisheries Plans – top of the South Island, underway
• Marlborough/Kaikoura commercial paua fishery, spatial management
• Cockles within Otago Harbour
• Orange roughy – deepwater stakeholder group working plan
• Surf claims and deepwater clams are being discussed

TOP

Coromandel Scallop ‘Proof of Concept’ Fisheries Plan

Stephanie Hill, Fisheries Analyst, Ministry of Fisheries

‘Proof of concept’ is a case study of how objective-based fisheries management would work in a fishery.

The Coromandel scallop fishery extends from Cape Rodney in the north to Town Point in the Bay of Plenty. Scallops are found in patches throughout this region and some inshore areas are closed to commercial fishing. It is a fishery that is important to various iwi and hapu groups.

The fishery is accessed by a large number of non-commercial fishers and a small number of commercial fishers. The highest proportion of catch is taken by the commercial sector [5].

It was suggested that the Coromandel scallop fishery was not a good example from which we could use as a basis for other shared fisheries plans. The mortality level in commercial scallop fisheries is over 30%, due to the type of gear used to drag up scallops. Commercial fishers in the Coromandel area are wasting more than twice the amount of scallops that both customary and recreational fishers take in one season. The mortality rate from recreational type dredges is negligible and diving had an almost zero effect on the scallop population. If MFish wanted to address any problems in this shared fishery the obvious place to start would be looking at commercial fishing methods. 

The Ministry had engaged both commercial and non-commercial fishers in a year-long process for a relatively minor fishery. It was suggested to MFish that there are other more important shared fisheries that should be researched.

MFish pointed out that the ‘proof of concept’ fisheries plans were not chosen on the basis of being a shared fishery. The three plans were chosen because of their different characteristics and were virtually a trial. The Ministry did not expect to develop plans for every fishery. 

Jonathan explained further,

“We are doing some work at the moment, but we are likely to be doing plans for inshore finfish in certain areas. Or inshore shellfish.”

Allocation was the underlying factor in fisheries plans and the hui was encouraged to work with MFish and also test the Ministry’s objectives for the fishery against their own.

As always, the challenges faced by non-commercial participants in this process was the lack of resources. Simple issues, such as getting time off work and travelling to meetings were an impediment to meaningful participation.

Of more significance to the non-commercial sector is the issue of having the right personnel involved in the discussions.

MFish did not have funding to provide recreational fishers resources to participate in these processes and had limited funding through the Treaty settlement for customary input.

MFish advised that tangata whenua involvement in the process had included Ngati Manuhiri, Ngati Whatua, Ngati Hei, the Bay of Plenty regional iwi customary Forum Working Group plus two other groups of tangata whenua. The Ministry confirmed these iwi and hapu representatives had attended one multi-stakeholder meeting held at the MFish’s offices. Earlier on in the process, MFish had met with different stakeholder groups individually.

Stephanie explained, “stakeholders are starting to agree on some goals for managing this fishery”.

The overall goal for the Coromandel scallop fishery has been defined as to, ‘Manage the mauri and sustainability of the fishery with a cautious, respectful approach’.

MFish had some difficulty in explaining ‘mauri’ so Sonny assisted by explaining that mauri is life force, the essence that permeates everything else.

Enhancement of the fishery is a goal for the future for this fishery.

When asked to name which inshore fisheries are managed at or above the biomass that would produce Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), as required by the Fisheries Act, Jonathan’s reply was,

“It’s the Ministry’s view that, within the limits of information, basically we are adhering to the law.”

MFish were asked to give some examples of which fisheries had recreational bag limits increased, as the seasonal increases in the scallop fisheries only applied to commercial catch limits. MFish said there had been some, “but not a lot”, and could not specify where those increases had occurred.

MFish accept they may not get 100% agreement in the Fisheries Plans process, if that occurs it will be left to “elected officials” to decide the outcome.

TOP

Shared Fisheries Policy Project

Jonathan Peacey, National MFish Manager, Fisheries Operations

Jonathan gave an outline of the Shared Fisheries Policy project, as Terry Lynch was not available to attend the hui, for personal reasons.

The Ministry had released a document for discussion Shared Fisheries Policy Development, in December 2005. MFish had held initial discussions with stakeholders about what the important issues were when considering shared fisheries. Shared fisheries are fisheries where both commercial and non-commercial fishers, customary and recreational, have a significant interest i.e. the fishery is important to them.

These discussions were not part of the formal consultation process, but MFish wanted to know what the concerns were for these (mainly) inshore fisheries. A range of options had been developed, Cabinet approval was being sought and a public discussion document was due to be released in August. The formal consultation process would run from mid-August to mid-December.

Once decisions were made, MFish would publish the consultation document on their website and through “key groups”.

MFish’s aim was to:

• Distribute the discussion document widely
• Have public discussions in main and regional centres
• Distribute articles in a range of print media
• Display information at relevant public events
• Use the established iwi and recreational regional forums
• Hold meetings with national recreational, industry and environmental groups
• Use the Ministry website to publish information

Once the Ministry had received stakeholder submissions their next objective was to summarise those and distribute the summary by the end of February 2007. MFish would make recommendations to the Minister so that Government decisions on shared fisheries could be made by mid-2007.

Questions and Answers

The following are questions put to the Ministry regarding the Shared Fisheries Policy project. Answers in italics are from Jonathan, unless stated otherwise.

“Is the Ministry still pursuing the idea of proportionalism?”

“Actually, I don’t even know what is in the recommendations. I haven’t been dealing with it so I have been commenting on process. I honestly don’t know what’s in the recommendations…. You will obviously, in fairly short order, see a copy of the paper.”

“Have you (MFish) got a list of meeting dates and venues for this public consultation to take place?”

“We have a list of some of those, such as using the regional iwi and recreational fora (forums). Some of them we have. I don’t know whether the policy group has already scheduled other meetings or not.”

“Did I hear you right when you said there was going to be final advice or a policy paper or recommendations mid-2007?”

“What I have heard is, a summary of submissions will be prepared and distributed by the end of February 2007. And then there will be some analysis going on and recommendations on the policy framework, to allow Government decisions by mid 2007. By February summarise submissions, March/April probably develop up the recommendations for the Minister, Cabinet, whoever, in order to be able to make decisions by mid-year.”

Questions were raised regarding the process following the consultation. Government decisions will determine the outcome and if any change was required,

“Once a decision is made, if it involves legislative change, to progress with that promptly”. 

It was pointed out that people on the regional recreational fishing forums were there as individuals and were not mandated to represent any particular position on the Shared Fisheries Policy. Questions were also raised regarding the representation of Ngapuhi interests. Ngapuhi leaders had the mandate of 107,000 people and they wanted to know if their concerns would be dealt with fairly, compared to individual submissions:

“Anyone, any group, will be allowed to make a submission. It’s not just numbers, but certainly the level of support is taken into account.”

TOP

Submissions

Concerns were raised regarding the analysis of submissions. Ministry was asked if they were considering using an independent body to analyse the submissions. option4 raised over 60,000 submissions to the Soundings process in 2000 and still held some reservations about how those individual submissions had been taken into account:

“I expect that we will do that, I don’t know whether we have planned to, but I expect we would.

Secondly, the summary of submissions will be available. If people believe that the Ministry has done an inappropriate job of summarising them then I am sure they will let the Minister and others know. So that’s another level of accountability.”

What constitutes a submission?

“This is not a voting game. 250,000 or 60,000 or 10,000 or 2, voting for option one, two, three, four or five, it doesn’t work that way. In preparing advice to the Minister, a summary of submissions is provided which indicates the nature of the submissions and the issues raised. And there is an indication of the numbers of people and typically, with the ones I have been involved in, we go through identify all the key issues and then we identify which of the submissions has raised that particular issue. So it’s broken down in a couple of different ways.

“So the issue is not, is it one or 60,000, it’s how many people indicated support for that particular view. That’s the issue that’s taken into account.”

After several more comments and a comparison of 60,000 people submitting in favour of the colour blue and 600 for red, Jonathan continued:

“As I indicated before, it’s not a matter of voting. Of simply the number of votes you get for an option or other. We elect decision makers, the Minister, Cabinet, Parliament when it goes to legislation, to make decisions. They don’t always make decisions in line with what the majority of people might want on a particular issue, because they are taking into account a very wide range of issues.

So the answer is, they obviously will take into account that 60,000 wanted [blue] and 600 wanted something else, but that is not a guarantee that they will choose to go blue. They may do something else. They must take that into account, if they don’t, of course their standards i.e. they are elected officials, they are clearly taking that into account when they make those decisions.”

In a democracy any politician that goes against the will of the people would face the consequences when voting time comes. It would be a good idea for Parliament to take the numbers into account when making a decision on the Shared Fisheries Policy.

Iwi Forums If there were no iwi Forum within a particular area, the Ministry would “continue to consult with iwi and hapu, as we are able, using whatever means we have available”. Is there a regional customary iwi Forum in the mid north, for the iwi of Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua and Ngati Wai?

Jonathan responded:

“In fact, we don’t have Memoranda of Understanding that would formalise an iwi Forum anywhere yet in the country. We have a number of groups that are developing towards that. And we are working through, with iwi and hapu leaders in the mid north, about the appropriate way for the Ministry, or the best way for the Ministry, to meet its obligations to provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua or even hapu. Now, those discussions are ongoing. Sonny is involved in those, as are others here and we are planning to meet, I think Stan [Crothers, MFish Deputy CEO] has indicated, later this month or early next month.”

When asked about the status of the Hokianga Accord, Jonathan indicated that iwi and hapu from the mid north had indicated their desire to work on their individual relationships with the Ministry.

Without being aware of the second letter from the Ministry (Appendix Two), Sonny responded to these comments, and referred to the hui held in Whangarei on the 30th June, with Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua, Ngati Wai iwi and the hapu of Te Roroa and Te Uri o Hau and the Ministry:

“ Unequivocally, the iwi leaders that were at that hui want to work together. And they also want the Ministry to individually deal with them in their specific plans.

“We want to work as a Forum. They haven’t said this [today], but I know Ngati Whatua, and Ngapuhi, this is our Forum. Te Roroa is here to observe today and they will make their own decision. Te Uri o Hau is observing and they will make their own decision. And Ngati Wai, they are not here at the moment so we can’t speak for them.

“But we have shown a desire to work together on the big issues like this. Jonathan, it’s hardly worth you going to every hapu in Ngapuhi, we got 236. There’s 236 hapu, if you are going to have these hui, you surely will be stretched for resources.”

TOP

Sonny explained to the hui that the Shared Fisheries Policy project was an outcome of poor fisheries management over time. The overfishing that had occurred prior to the introduction of the Quota Management System in 1986 and the subsequent failure of the Ministry to limit commercial take to sustainable levels. If commercial catch had been constrained and fisheries rebuilt, as was planned in 1986, this debate would not be necessary now.

The reason why the Shared Fisheries Policy project was so important to Maori and Pakeha alike was because it concerned the fisheries both customary and recreational fishers target, the inshore species. Previous discussion had been about giving each group a proportion of the fishery and capping (limiting) the catch of non-commercial fishers. This was not fair, as commercial overfishing had caused the damage. “It’s [about] our freedom to continue to catch a fish”.

Without a permit, fishing to feed the whanau is categorised as ‘recreational’, under the law.

For Maori it was important that iwi and hapu worked together on the big issues such as the Shared Fisheries Policy. Iwi and hapu could work on specific plans with the Ministry if they felt that was best for them.

 Wiremu Wiremu received a rousing response after summing up the discussion about the Shared Fisheries Policy and the feeling amongst those at the hui:

“This Hokianga Accord is probably the best ‘helicopter’ view we’ve had for a long time. It’s the most comfortable waka that we have found that has drawn everyone together. Individual hapu can do their thing. I say to you [MFish] please don’t ignore it because its pretty strong. We’ve united together in a strong body and it needs to be tested, and you [MFish] are testing it. In acknowledging all of your submissions [to the Shared Fisheries Policy] please don’t ignore the Hokianga Accord”.

Jonathan acknowledged the summary from Wiremu:

“I agree with the strength of the Accord. There are reasons why we are working through to determine the exact status [of the Accord], but the important thing is that even though we maybe working through that, we are here. Because whatever the status, we think it is important the Ministry is here.”

	Kaipara Harbour The Quota Management System (QMS) was introduced in 1986 to constrain commercial catch and rebuild severely depleted fisheries. Commercial fishers were compensated to fish at lower levels. For the Kaipara, flounder and mullet catch had never been constrained and whole communities of people had suffered the consequences of overfishing within the harbour.
option4 submitted in 2005 to the Ministry of Fisheries proposals for adjustments to the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC).

Arguments were made in favour of reducing commercial take so local people would have reasonable access to these fisheries. Despite the well-founded arguments to reduce take to below existing catch levels, to rebuild these fisheries, MFish decided to maintain the commercial catch rates for these species.

In option4’s opinion it is wrong for MFish to allow unconstrained commercial fishing and then set allowances for customary and recreational fishers based on people’s reduced access to those fisheries.

Session Conclusion

MFish acknowledged the hospitality of the people of Naumai marae. Jonathan considered the meeting had been constructive and the Ministry had learnt some things from the discussions. MFish hoped their presentations had been informative and helpful to the discussions scheduled for later in the hui. The Ministry still had a lot of work to do and would be considering how the work they will be doing would “better reflect” what they had learnt.

Questions regarding compliance and enforcement for the Kaipara Harbour were best directed to Graeme Morrell and George Riley who were staying for the remainder of the hui. They could pass on specific questions to the District Compliance Manager, for answers. Those questions would also be sent to Jonathan for his input.

Without the benefit of viewing the latest Ministry letter (Appendix Two) and before the MFish team left, Sonny reminded them that the Ministry “should not get the koha mixed up with the hui fee”. The marae committee would be sending the Ministry an invoice for the two day hui, in due course. The koha already given by MFish was accepted and appreciated.

Chris Jenkins of the Department of Conservation welcomed the honesty from hui participants. “Some of your comments certainly rung true, I can sense the frustration, I can sense what you want to do and I am listening.”

DoC appreciated the hospitality of the Naumai marae people shown to his team.  Alan Fleming and the DoC adviser, Vince Kerr, stayed at the marae for the remainder of the hui and provided some valuable feedback to later discussions.

TOP