|
option4
PO Box 37951
Parnell
11/3/02
Dear Minister
From our very first
meeting you have emphasized the need to build trust between all the parties
involved in the fisheries rights debate. The Cabinet Paper FIN (01) 216
is a betrayal of that trust. It contains half-truths, has omitted critical
parts of the debate and continues to promote the proportional share agenda
of the Ministry of Fisheries.
We have analysed the
Cabinet paper FIN (01) 216 Recreational Fisheries Reform. We fail to see
any genuine recognition of the views of 98.5% of submissions to "
Soundings." Our response is attached for your information. It is
not acceptable for the Ministry to ignore, misrepresent and downplay the
public's right to gather food from the sea. Unless there is a genuine
attempt to incorporate the views of he public in any future consultation
process, we can only assume the Ministry's agenda is government policy.
We understood from you and the Ministry that future discussion would be
based on Moyle's Promise. This is obviously not so.
You have shown a willingness
to engage with option4 and the public of New Zealand over their rights
to fish. We need to get the rights issue debate and resolution back on
track. You have previously stated to us that you would be prepared to
come to Auckland and meet with us if there was a need to do so. We believe
that the need for such a meeting is urgent and therefore seek an informal
meeting with you before the 25th of March to have a free and frank dialogue.
We remain,
Yours faithfully,
Paul Barnes
option4 Project Leader
Response
Office
of the Minister for Fisheries
The Chair
Cabinet Finance Infrastructure and Environment Committee
RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
REFORM
Executive
Summary
- This paper comprises
a report on the outcome of the public consultation process, and recommended
options for progressing with the reform to improve the management of
recreational fishers.
- I recommend a further
period of consultation with a view to developing a specific proposal
for reform, and have instructed the Ministry of Fisheries to provide
me with a strategy for further consultation. In the interim I have instructed
the Ministry to develop proposals to improve the information collected
on the nature of the recreational harvest.
We
agree that better information on recreational harvest is necessary,
however, we do not agree with the Ministry's proposed means of achieving
it. The Ministry proposes to improve the accuracy of the information
on recreational catch by implementing more regular surveys and using
charter boats to provide catch information. Running the surveys will
not increase the accuracy of the estimates - it will create the same
level of accuracy more often! What is needed is a revised sampling regime
which will improve the sampling stratification and therefore the accuracy
of the estimate. The use of charter vessels is of dubious value. Previous
Ministry surveys using the charter fleet have indicated the fleet works
in only a limited range of geographical areas (compared with the recreational
sector as a whole) and that less than 10% of fishers use charter vessels.
A standardised CPUE project with volunteers using a variety of recreational
methods may give a much more reliable result, charter boats who offer
to participate could be included
- I propose reporting
back to the Committee with a recommended option for public consultation
no later than 1 February 2003 and subsequently to report back on the
outcome of public consultation no later than 1 June 2003.
option4
has real concerns regards the ability of the Ministry to conduct meaningful
public consultation throughout New Zealand in the proposed timeframe.
Background
- While all New
Zealanders have the right to go recreational fishing, there are signs
that their ability to catch fish is being eroded. The quality of recreational
fishing includes access to fishing areas as well as catch rates and
size of fish. Catch rates and size of fish are being affected by:
- Increasing
numbers of people going recreational fishing in popular areas, many
of which are also popular commercial and customary fishing areas
- Environmental
deterioration, such as habitat destruction from land-based pollution
and
- environmentally
damaging fishing methods
- Lack of clear
guidance on what share of the available catch should go to recreational
fishers versus commercial, and poor information to support that
decision.
- A low propensity
on the part of recreational fishers to act collectively to protect
their rights and promote their interests.
- Illegal fishing
It
seems the Ministry can't bring itself to say that the quality of
recreational fishing has been affected by commercial fishing. In
fact the very reason we have the QMS is because commercial fishers
had severely depleted the most valuable inshore fish stocks with
pair trawlers and purse seiners in the 1970s and early 1980s. The
conservation measures of the QMS were undermined by the Quota Appeal
Authority and when the Minister cut SNA1 quotas because the biomass
had reached 11% of the virgin stock he was challenged in court by
the fishing industry for redistributing rights to recreational fishers.
The impact of commercial fishing on New Zealand fish stocks and
the quality of recreational fishing has been totally omitted from
the bullet points above. Reading this summary the impression is
given that the greatest threat to the quality of recreational fishing
IS recreational fishers and environmental factors.
This advice
to Cabinet fails to adequately communicate the level of scepticism
the public has about the effectiveness of the Quota Management System
and fisheries management in general in New Zealand. Whilst the public
are bombarded at every opportunity by Ministry and Industry awarding
praise and accolades on the Quota Management System, the public
are regularly on the loosing end of the stick with countless examples
of failure of the system to adequately constrain effort or rebuild
stocks appropriately. The Minister is advised that the public have
not enjoyed fishing as good as what it is now since the 1970's -
tell that to those who fish for snapper in the Marlborough Sounds,
flounder and mullet in the Kaipara, gurnard in the Hauraki Gulf,
those who aspire to catching a Broadbill or tuna, the crayfish divers
in CRA2, the Paua fishermen of Marlborough etc
Areas that recreational
fishers can access are being affected by:
- Marina developments,
marine reserves, marine farming, and restrictions on access to wharves
and private land
- These issues signal
a need for:
- A clearer definition
of the relationship between recreational fishing, and customary
Maori and commercial fishing rights.
- Improved area-based
management of recreational fishing
- Consideration
of ways to ensure recreational fishers can protect their own interests
and rights
- From a broader
fisheries management perspective, all three harvest groups (customary
Maori, recreational and commercial) are missing out on potential benefits.
Because the Minister of Fisheries has some discretion in setting the
commercial and recreational shares, both sectors lobby the Minister
to protect and enhance their share. This can cause tension and divert
attention and resources from working together to improve fisheries management
outcomes. For example, fishing could be improved by supporting initiatives
to rebuild stocks through improved husbandry, less damaging techniques
and restraint.
The use of the term share (recreational share)
is used seven times in the Cabinet paper; the term is misleading. The
situation in law is that the Minister shall allow for Maori customary
non-commercial fishing interests and recreational interests. The Minister
must make a deliberate allocation for the recreational sector - not
provide them a share which may simply vary with the total allowable
catch. The distinction is important since the Ministry believes the
recreational catch should be defined as a proportional share of the
total catch so as to minimize the impact on the commercial fishery.
option4.co.nz has continually stated their opposition to the proportional
share approach recommended by the Ministry.
Since
the SNA1 court case, commercial fishers have wanted to cap recreational
take. A cap on recreational take is fundamental to the Ministries proposals
on Proportional Share that was the basis of the Soundings Process. While
it may be the nature of politics that the Ministry doesn't say what
it means, to us in the public it is perceived as plain dishonest to
leave out all reference to the proposed cap. If a key issue in this
debate is a cap on recreational take it needs to be clearly stated in
this document and not hidden from Cabinet. If it is not the intent of
the "recreational share" to be a cap, then state that instead.
- There is also a
continued need to improve information on recreational take in fisheries
where recreational take is significant in order to
- Guide and support
sustainability decisions
- Inform allocative
decisions
- Enable the
development of co-operative management regimes
Previous Cabinet Decisions
- The objectives
for this review of the management of recreational fishing are to [FIN
(00) M 20/3 refers]:
- More clearly
specify the relationship between recreational and commercial fishing
rights, and recreational and customary fishing rights
option4
was formed with the express intent of ensuring that the public was
involved in determining these relationships, as the outcome of this
process will define the publics right to harvest. There was little
or no effort made to address the relationship between recreational
and customary fishing rights. Maori do a lot of fishing. Much of
the fish caught by Maori are caught whilst fishing under the Amateur
Fishing Regulations. Maori make up a significant part of what is
known as "the recreational sector". There is much work
to be done to determine clearly the relationship between recreational
fishing rights and customary fishing rights.
- Ensure spatial
allocation issues affecting recreational fishing can be addressed
- Encourage recreational
fishers to take greater responsibility for managing recreational
fishing
- On November 2 1998,
Cabinet [CAB (98) M 41/7-11 refers], inter alia:
e) Agreed that the proposals of [...] reform of the management regime
[...] of recreational fisheries be the subject of a public consultation
by way of a standard Ministerial or departmental consultation document.
- On July 31 2000,
Cabinet [FIN (00) M 20/3 refers], inter alia:
a) Agreed that the Minister of Fisheries report back to the Committee
on the outcome of the consultation process, further analysis and recommended
options for change by 31 March 2001.
- The report back
date was subsequently extended to 31 December 2001 [FIN Memo (01)1 8/5
refers].
The
Joint Working Group on Recreational Fishing Rights
- Over the past decade
recreational fishers became increasingly concerned about some aspects
of marine recreational fisheries management, with much of their frustration
focusing on access their local fisheries.
- Recreational fishers
made their concerns known to the previous government. The Minister of
Fisheries came to the conclusion that more clearly specifying the harvesting
and management rights and responsibilities of recreational fishers could
resolve many problems. The government was already following this course
of action for customary and commercial fishers. It is also a course
comparable countries have followed, including many Australian states.
- At the New Zealand
Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC) annual conference in July 1998,
the Minister challenged the NZRFC to work collaboratively with Government
to test the public's views about better defining recreational fishing
rights and management responsibilities.
- The NZRFC responded
positively and accepted this challenge. A joint NZRFC/Ministry of Fisheries
working group (JWG) was formed to develop options to identify and secure
New Zealand recreational fishing rights and responsibilities.
- Regular meetings
of the JWG were held in late 1998 and early 1999 to develop background
papers for discussion with NZRFC members. Six papers on recreational
fishing rights were discussed during workshop sessions at the 1999 NZRFC
annual conference in Auckland. Following the workshop sessions the JWG
continued to meet to develop a draft public discussion document based
on the feedback received. In December 1999 the JWG met with SeaFIC,
Te Ohu Kai Moana, ECO and Royal Forest & Bird to seek their views
on the draft document.
- The JWG prepared
a revised draft public discussion document, based on the feedback received
from the workshops and the meetings with the other sector groups. As
part of the process of obtaining Cabinet approval to release the discussion
document, the draft was circulated to government departments for comment
in May and again in June 2000.
Public Consultation
- I released the
discussion document-Soundings the NZRFC annual conference in Nelson
on 21 July 2000. The consultation strategy included wide distribution
of the discussion document and public meetings and Hui. About 14,000
copies of Soundings were distributed over the public consultation period.
Thirty-five public meetings were held throughout the country. In addition
a number of clubs organised meetings of their own and invited speakers
from the JWG and option4 Group*. (Please read
response comment at bottom of page) In response to growing
public interest, the deadline for submissions was extended from 30 November
to 20 December.
Section 18 is a classic example of how the
Ministry spin doctors play down the importance of the consultation process
and as well misrepresenting the purposes of the formation of option4.
In short, 18 is a deliberate distortion of the truth.
FACT: The Ministry completely failed to consult properly with the public
- on two occasions notification of the meeting appeared in print as
the meetings were occurring. (South Auckland, West Auckland) It will
be a straightforward exercise demonstrating the inadequacy of this consultation
process.
The truth is that option4 were so concerned by the white wash of this
process that they themselves organised several other Auckland meetings.
Various members of option4 went from Dargaville to Gisborne to ensure
that the public's rights were not swept over, as has happened three
times previously. Firstly, the formation of the Quota Management System,
then the Pearce Report, then the Wheeler Report."
- A total of 62,117
submissions were received. The overwhelming majority of all submissions
received were from recreational fishers (99%). A significant feature
of responses is the form letter distributed by the option4 Group, which
affected a total of 61,178 submissions. In addition to this, 950 other
submissions were received (610 Soundings submission forms and 329 letters
from individuals and organisations). An independent contractor prepared
a summary of the submissions.
Amongst the 329 letters are many Submissions
from organisations and clubs with hundreds and sometimes many thousands
of members endorsing the principles of option4. These include, for example,
the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council and Yachting New Zealand. It
is also relevant to comment here that at the AGM of the New Zealand
Recreational Fishing Council in 2001 all 4 principles of option4 were
adopted.
- In early August,
the JWG sent a letter to iwi inviting tangata whenua to comment on issues
and options raised in Soundings and seeking their views as to how they
wanted to be consulted. By mid February 13 hui had been held. In the
South Island hui were held with representatives from Te Tau Ihu and
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. In the North Island 11 Hui were held, and a
number of other tangata whenua groups were contacted but they sought
no Hui.
- The Joint Working
Group presented me with a summary of submissions and a report outlining
the process undertaken and the Group's interpretation of the submissions.
Their findings are outlined below.
*
option4
are a group of recreational fishers who formed in response to the Soundings
public discussion process, specifically to oppose licensing and promote
other options within the package.
* option4 was not formed "specifically" to oppose licensing!
Licensing of the peoples right to harvest food for sustenance was never
and never will be a runner. This was simply a red herring, which eventually
backfired on the Ministry with a public outcry.
Options 1,2,3 in the Soundings document are really variations of the
same ill-conceived intent to lock the public of NZ into an explicit
share (proportionalism) and effectively make the public minor shareholders
in their own fishery within the Quota Management System.
To suggest that option4 was formed to "promote other options within
the package" is not true either.
option4 has a clearly set out package of principals based around the
very reasonable requirement for the public to have a priority right
in their own fishery to harvest, as promised by the last Labour Government
and its Minister of Fisheries, Colin Moyle. The "The Moyle Promise"...."preference
will be given to non-commercial fishing …..where a species is not
sufficiently abundant to support both non-commercial and commercial
fishing. ""
*
Furthermore, the footnote implies that those who support option4 do
so primarily because they oppose licensing - nothing could be further
from the truth. At the Auckland Boat Show in 2001, 3 months after the
Minister had announced licensing was not an option, more than 3,000
people (over eight percent of those attending the show) signed letters
to the Minister of Fisheries stating that although the licensing issue
is dead the recreational right issue urgently needs to be addressed.
A similar level of support was subsequently recorded at the Hamilton
and Tauranga Boat Shows.
Findings
of the Joint Working Group
- The key lessons
and conclusions that the JWG presented to me are as follows:
- There is widespread
support for change. The public wants to improve the quality of recreational
fishing and recognise a need for better specification of rights,
in particular rights to participate in the management of recreational
fishing. Views about the way forward were diverse, and in some cases
contradictory. While the nature and extent of the necessary change
is still unclear, it is evident that the status quo is unsustainable.
- Recreational
fishers do not support licensing.
- A lot more
work is needed to engage iwi in the debate about better specification
of recreational fishing rights. This has not proved an easy task
and, as a consequence, the JWG still does not have a full appreciation
of iwi views.
- The commercial
sector acknowledges the public right to go recreational fishing.
Some of the customary sector acknowledges this right but others
consider it a privilege. Both sectors do not want the process of
better specification of rights to be done in a manner that adversely
affects their current rights.
- People are
passionate about recreational fishing. The majority just want to
go fishing, and do not wish to participate in the complexities of
fisheries management. One could say the
same about both the commercial and customary sectors.
- There is, in
general, a poor understanding about how we manage fisheries in New
Zealand. There is also a poor understanding, and acceptance, of
the nature of customary fishing rights.
The statement 'Views about the way forward
were diverse, and in some case contradictory.' is misleading. The
Ministry has promoted this view to explain their poor performance
in promoting a future management policy for recreational fishing
during the 'Soundings' round of consultations. The fact is that
more than 98.5% of the more than 60,000 submissions on Soundings
supported the four principles of Option4.co.nz. Subsequently the
other two major recreational fishing organizations (NZRFC and NZBGFC)
approved the four principles as their position. Yet the Ministry
refuses to acknowledge that New Zealand recreational fishers whole-heartedly
support an option which was not proposed by the Ministry.
This paragraph's comment on a diverse and contradictory recreational
viewpoint is in contrast with paragraph 27 of the Cabinet paper
where the Minister acknowledged that there is widespread support
by recreational fishers to the Marine Recreational Fishing Policy
released by Minister of Fisheries Colin Moyle.
- The recommendations
of the JWG were as follows:
- Support the
further development of policy to:
- Better define
the public share of and access to fisheries, and,
- Improve the
management of recreational fishing (note, there is widespread support
for statutorily mandated national and regional representative bodies,
which are government funded).
- Agree that
further policy development does not include any form of licensing
of marine recreational fishers.
- Note that any
future public policy debate on the recreational share, access and
management would benefit from a broad scale education and information
programme on NZ fisheries management.
- Support exploring
ways to improve the measurement of the recreational harvest.
- Support the
need to improve the input and participation of Iwi in the further
development of the recreational rights policy
There is widespread recreational fisher
support for a better defined allocation and access to the fishery.
However there is no evidence for 'widespread support' for mandated
representative bodies. Given that the Ministry did not keep minutes
of the public meetings on 'Soundings', and that 98.5% of the submissions
supported the Option4.co.nz principles which do not canvass the
issue of representation, we challenge the Ministry to substantiate
their comment. We believe it is a serious breach of Public Service
practice that Cabinet has been provided with advice which has no
basis in fact.
The Ministerial Consultative Group
- As a consequence
of these broad findings I sought to continue the process of consultation
with the recreational sector by establishing a Ministerial Consultative
Group (MCG). This Group was composed of representatives from the NZRFC,
Option4 and other major recreational groups who submitted to the Soundings
process. This group acted as my sounding board for policy proposals
as officials developed them.
Although the MCG comprised of representatives
from NZRFC, Option4 and other major recreational groups, the paragraph
is misleading in suggesting that the Minister's group represented the
mandate from those groups. Although option4.co.nz and others sought
to develop a joint terms of reference for the MCG, the Ministry decided
that they would unilaterally determine the terms. One of their terms
was that the Chatham House Rule applies. In other words the MCG members
were not to represent their organization's interest but were to act
as individuals. It is therefore incorrect to imply the group had the
mandate and could speak for its member organizations.
- The MCG met five
times in total and received a large amount of information from the Ministry
of Fisheries. This included a detailed policy package developed by the
Ministry of Fisheries drawing on the contents of the Soundings document
and the findings of the JWG.
The paper's comments on the consultation misses
the point that although detailed submissions were provided by the MCG
members on the Ministry's papers and repeated requests for discussion
on the issue, the Ministry has refused to discuss the content of the
MCG members submissions or seek to accommodate their views.
- The MCG concluded
that the process of further defining rights and management responsibilities
would require more time to reach consensus. This would allow the recreational
sector to achieve a greater level of understanding of the problems they
currently face and to allow a full assessment of the risks involved
in any proposed changes.
Paragraph 26 makes a significant error in not
commenting on the major conclusion of the MCG process - that the recreational
right needs to be defined, we are at a loss to see how the Ministry
could have omitted this point in advising Cabinet.
Objectives
of recreational fishing management
- The Hon. Colin
Moyle, Minster of Fisheries, released the National Policy Statement
on Marine Recreational Fisheries Management in 1989 and this included
the objectives of recreational fisheries management. The Ministerial
Consultative Group and I agreed these objectives provide a sound basis
for continuing discussions on identifying an agreed reform proposal.
There was also recognition of the need for more comprehensive information
on the nature of recreational harvest.
- Objectives of marine
recreational fishing management can be derived from the policy statement
on marine recreational fishing made in 1989 by the then Minister of
Fisheries, the Hon Colin Moyle. Since that time major changes have occurred
to the fisheries management environment including the Fisheries Act
1996, the Deed of Settlement Act and the shift in focus from centralised
planning to locally based planning through new mechanisms such as Fisheries
Plans which entail a much greater role for stakeholders. It is useful
to restate the aim and objectives of the policy statement in light of
the new constraints imposed, and opportunities presented, by the new
environment.
- The aim of fisheries
management is: "To enable the fishery resources of New Zealand
to be utilised in a manner that maximizes the benefits to the social,
economic and cultural well being of New Zealanders while ensuring sustainability."
- "The National
Objectives for marine recreational fishing are:
- Access to a
reasonable share of inshore fishery resources equitably distributed
between recreational fishers
- Improve, where
practical, the quality of recreational fishing·
- To increase
public awareness and knowledge of the marine environment and the
need for conservation of fishery resources
- Improve management
of recreational fisheries
- To reduce conflict
within and among fishery user groups
- To maintain
current tourist fisheries and encourage the development of new operations
where appropriate
- To prevent
depletion of resources in areas where local communities are dependent
on the sea as a source of food
- Provide more
opportunities for recreational fishers to participate in the management
of fisheries"
- Preference
will be given to non-commercial fishing in areas readily accessible
to and popular with the public, where a species is not sufficiently
abundant to support both non-commercial and commercial fishing.
This is the fundamental
principle which was omitted from the Cabinet Paper. This principle
is an essential part of the agreement between the parties involved
in the MCG. Without this principle option4 could not commit to continuing
to participate in the consultation process. This principle supports
option4's submission of a priority right for the recreational fisher.
- The National Objectives
provide the framework for recreational management. However, the method
of implementation needs to be developed within the current environment
The
next phase of reform
- The consultation
process undertaken thus far concludes the first phase of reform. The
process considered a wide range of possible policy options. These options
included licensing and devolution of management responsibilities. Some
of these options, particularly any form of licensing, are now confirmed
as inappropriate in the New Zealand environment at this time
- New groups representing
the recreational sector have emerged as a direct result of the consultation
process. This has improved the extent of representation available to
the sector. The good relationship that has been developed with the JWG
through the Soundings consultation process does not however exist with
these new groups to the same extent
- It is now possible
to build on the progress made and develop a specific proposal for reform
within this new environment. This second phase of reform will require
a focus on building a consensus around a specific proposal. There is
a need to continue to work closely with the recreational sector and
build on the improving relationship with the Government.
- The development
of a reform proposal will require further work, recognising both the
national objectives and the constraints imposed by the wider fisheries
management environment. It is proposed that after a period of further
consultation I report back to the Committee with a specific proposal
in the form of a consultation document no later than 1 February 2003.
Public consultation will then be sought and the results of that process
will be reported to this Committee no later than 1 June 2003.
The
reality is that 98.5% of submissions to the Soundings process supported
the principles of option4. It would seem appropriate that this new reform
proposal is based on these very principles. This could eliminate the
need for extending the next consultation round due to the limited time
frame allocated for this process.
- The development
of a final policy package for reform will be constrained by a requirement
to:
- Avoid the under-mining
of the fisheries Deed of Settlement Recognise the legitimate rights
of other fisheries stakeholders including the commercial and customary
sectors
- Operate within
the fiscal constraints imposed by the Crown and the rules surrounding
expenditure of public funds
- Recognise the
explicit consideration given to sustainability of fishstocks and
the
- Environmental
principles of the Fisheries Act 1996
- Be consistent
with any outcomes of the Oceans Policy process and with the biodiversity
strategy
- This public consultation
will carry a fiscal cost which would be met within existing baselines.
Initial estimates of these costs are $125,000.
Information
on recreational harvest
- The achievement
of the above goals and the future management of recreational fisheries
will rely to a large extent on the quality of information available
on the nature and extent of recreational harvest. This will be true
irrespective of the final outcome of the current review of recreational
fisheries management. All participants in the consultation process recognised
this and they also recognised that there are some gaps in the information
currently collected.
The
final outcome of the current review process will have a huge impact
on the future management of recreational fisheries. Compliance by recreational
fishers is more likely to be achieved if they agree with the measures
being taken to improve the fishery and sustain it for future generations.
- Therefore there
is a clear need in the short term to address the issue of information
regarding the recreational harvest. I have instructed the Ministry of
Fisheries to address these issues within the current Fisheries Act 1996
framework.
- The Ministry will
develop an information strategy that addresses the information demands
of sustainability, the integrity of the harvest rights of stakeholders
and other management requirements. This strategy will incorporate at
least the following two areas where a need for improved information
has been identified:
- The nature
and extent of the harvest from charter vessels
- The frequency,
consistency and accuracy of the recreational harvest surveys
- These initiatives
will carry a fiscal cost that the Ministry will meet within existing
baselines. Indicative costs of potential elements of the strategy are:
| Doubling
the frequency of the four yearly recreational harvest survey ($1,000,000
per survey) |
$250,000
pa
|
| Requiring
reporting from charter boat operators |
$250,000
pa
|
| Total |
$500,000 pa
|
These policy proposals
were put to the MCG in July. The feedback requested and delivered was
thorough and well founded. There has been no response to that feedback,
much of which disagreed with the value and purposes of the above decisions.
This process of consultation leaves a lot to be desired as far as MCG
participants are concerned. There is little point in working on feedback
if it is not only going to be ignored but also goes unacknowledged and
debated. To learn of outcomes of consultation process such as MCG in
"fait accompli" manner such as this element of the Cabinet
Paper and Minute of Cabinet decisions is not acceptable. If readers
of this response would like to know what the considered advise of the
MCG participants is they will have to ask the Ministry to lift the confidentiality
of the MCG process - a process unlikely to get much support from the
Recreational Sector in the future. Not the intent of the Minister, we
are sure.
Consultation
- This paper has
been prepared in consultation with the Ministry for the Environment,
The Department of Conservation, Te Puni Kokiri and the Treasury.
Financial
Implications
- The fiscal costs
arising from the recommendations in this paper amount to $625,000 in
2002/3 and $500,000 in the out years. These costs will be met from within
existing baselines.
Treaty
impacts
- The recommendations
in this paper are consistent with customary fishing rights and the fisheries
Deed of Settlement
Publicity
- I intend to make
an announcement on the progress that has been made with the reforms
and the recommended path forward following cabinet decisions.
Regulatory
Impact Statement and Business Compliance Cost Statement
- There are no regulatory
impacts or business compliance costs associated with the recommendations
in this paper.
Recommendations
- It is recommended
that the Committee:
a) note that the first round of public consultation has been
completed and the need for further work has been identified
b) note all parties to the discussion following the public consultation
agree the following objectives of recreational fisheries management
provide a basis for continuing the discussions:
- Access to a
reasonable share of inshore fishery resources equitably distributed
between recreational fishers
- Improve, where
practical, the quality of recreational fishing
- To increase
public awareness and knowledge of the marine environment and the
need for conservation of fishery resources
- Improve management
of recreational fisheries
To reduce conflict within and among fishery user groups
- To maintain
current tourist fisheries and encourage the development of
- new operations
where appropriate
- To prevent
depletion of resources in areas where local communities are dependent
on the sea as a source of food
- Provide more
opportunities for recreational fishers to participate in the management
of fisheries
(c) note
that I have requested that the Ministry of Fisheries work closely
with the recreational sector to develop a specific proposal for
reform to enable implementation of the objectives outlined in (b))
above within the constraints of the current fisheries management
environment which are:
- Avoid the
undermining of the fisheries Deed of Settlement
- Recognise the
legitimate rights of other fisheries stakeholders including the
commercial and customary sectors
- Operate within
the fiscal constraints imposed by the Crown and the rules surrounding
expenditure of public funds
- Recognise the
explicit consideration given to sustainability of fishstocks and
the environmental principles of the Fisheries Act 1996
- Be consistent
with any outcomes of the Oceans Policy process and with the biodiversity
strategy
d) agree that
the Ministry of Fisheries develop and implement an information strategy
to improve the nature and extent of information on the recreational
harvest
e) agree that
the Minister of Fisheries report back to the Committee on the outcome
of further analysis and a recommended option for public consultation
no later than 1 February 2003
f) agree that
the Minister of Fisheries report back to the Committee with the
outcome of public consultation no later than 1 June 2003
Hon Pete Hodgson
Minister of Fisheries
|