(from DoC website)

Great Barrier Marine Reserve Proposal To Be Reviewed

11 Nov 2003

The Department of Conservation will review its current marine reserve proposal for Great Barrier Island based on feedback from the community, said DOC Auckland conservator Rob McCallum.

Results of a questionnaire on DOC's proposal for a 52,772-hectare marine reserve on the north-east coast of Great Barrier were released today.

Mr McCallum thanked all those who made the effort to give their views on the marine reserve proposal. Submitters have raised a wide range of issues and conveyed a lot of information that the department now needs to work through, he said.

“What submissions have told us is that while there is a core of support for a marine reserve on the north-east coast of Great Barrier , iwi, the local community and stakeholders have a number of legitimate concerns about the existing proposal. We now need to discuss these further.”

Mr McCallum said Great Barrier locals had expressed clear reservations about the Whangapoua Estuary and traditional coastal fishing spots being ‘no take', and this was one of the issues that needed to be resolved.

“We have always acknowledged the relationship between the island residents and the fishing resource and the survey confirms this.”

Tangata whenua had also asked to be involved in further discussions, and the department was happy to progress these, he said.

However, many of the issues that were raised could be cleared up very easily, said Mr McCallum.

“People still seem to think a marine reserve would prevent them anchoring their boats along the coast, sheltering from storms, and carrying fish on board caught outside the reserve. This is simply not true. People can do all of these things within a marine reserve.”

Responses also showed that more information was needed in some areas. Submissions gave a confused picture about how people used the north-east coast and this needed to be clarified by gathering more information, said Mr McCallum.

“How people use the area and therefore how they might be affected by a marine reserve is very important because this is a key test in a marine reserve application.”

“The next step for us is to take a hard look at submissions, fill in some gaps in information and discuss issues raised with key affected parties. It's not something that we want to rush. The more work we do now, the better the final outcome for all parties.

“We shouldn't forget that marine habitats off the Great Barrier north-east coast are some of the most special and diverse of the Hauraki Gulf, with huge potential for scientific study and the benefits of natural state protection that Goat Island and Poor Knight's marine reserves are so clearly showing.”

The department received 1863 responses on its marine reserve proposal, most of which came from people living in Auckland (64 percent). One third of responses were on forms distributed by the recreational fishing lobby group Option4.

Of the submissions received, 68 percent opposed the proposal, 11 percent supported it, and 20 percent expressed either qualified support or opposition. Loss of recreational fishing or shellfish harvesting was the most common objection. Twenty four percent of submitters supported a marine reserve in principle somewhere on the north-east coast.

A report summarising the results of submissions has been sent to every submitter and is available on www.doc.govt.nz (under Auckland /What's New?) or on request from the Auckland Conservancy, ph 09 307 9279.

Media enquiries: Fiona Oliphant, Department of Conservation, Ph 09 307 4868, mobile 027 5111 222.

October 29 th 2003

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you again today.

option4 have spoken to the Board three times this year with the intention of informing you of what the public are saying regarding marine reserves and marine protection in general. As an independent body representing community interests in their rights to fish for food and marine protection it is only fair we make this effort to share with you what feedback we are getting.

Great Barrier Island marine reserve

I note with interest the comment in the unconfirmed minutes of the August Board meeting that the analysis of the submissions would be available to the public by the end of September. I understand this has been delayed and would like some indication of when the analysis will be available. There is a huge amount of interest in this proposal and in particular the process undertaken by DoC to gather support for the reserve, the process and basis of their analysis of the public feedback.

Public Meetings

Also noted is the comment that the ‘Drop In' meeting held at the Marine Rescue Centre was “ in effect a public meeting”. In no way can that meeting be considered a public meeting in consultation terms. If we look at the definition on effective consultation in the Court of Appeal decision arising from the case between International Airport Ltd and Air New Zealand (CA 23/92, 73/92[1993] 1 NZLR 671). The relevant section of the decision is as follows:

‘Consultation must allow sufficient time, and a genuine effort must be made. It is a reality not a charade. To consult is not merely to tell or present. Nor, at the other extreme is it to agree. Consultation does not necessarily involve negotiation towards an agreement, although the latter not uncommonly can follow, as the tendency in consultation is to seek at least consensus. Consultation is an intermediate situation involving meaningful discussion. Despite its somewhat impromptu nature I cannot improve on the attempt at description, which I made in West Coast United Council v Prebble at p. 405:

‘Consulting involves the statement of a proposal not yet fully decided upon, listening to what others have to say, considering their responses and then deciding what will be done.'

Implicit in the concept is a requirement that the party consulted will be (or will be made) adequately informed so as to be able to make intelligent and useful responses. It is also implicit that the party obliged to consult, while quite entitled to have working plan in mind, must keep its mind open and be ready to change and even start afresh. Beyond that, there are no universal requirements as to form. Any matter of oral or written interchange which allows adequate expression and consideration of views will suffice. Nor is there any universal requirement as to duration. In some situations adequate consultation could take place in one telephone call. In other contexts it might require years of formal meetings. Generalities are not helpful.'

While the Department may consider their obligations to consult less due to the non – statutory phase of the Great Barrier Island marine reserve proposal option4 consider any attempts at consultation should at least meet the requirements of the above legal definition. It is also very important to note that the statutory phase of the marine reserve establishment process does not include consultation with the wider public. For many, what consultation will occur has occurred. We remain firm in our opinion that the Department's efforts to inform the public of their opportunities to be consulted were inadequate.

‘Drop In' Meetings

At the 'Drop In' meetings the public were offered the opportunity to talk to staff on a one-on-one basis and have their opinions recorded. Where have those opinions been recorded and would the Board have access to the records? option4 would like to have a copy of those opinions for our records with any obvious personal information removed.

Marine Reserves

It was very encouraging to listen to the Conservator, Rob McCallum address the Hauraki Gulf Forum on September 17 th and acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the ad hoc nature of marine reserve creation, the lack of strategic approach to marine reserve proposals and concerns around public consultation. The fact that DoC has decided to take a leading role in talking to all of those agencies and the public about how we want biodiversity protected is a great step forward and option4 want to be part of that process. There is a lot more that can be gained by a cooperative approach than any process we have been involved with to date. We look forward to being actively involved and using our networks to engage with the public in a meaningful and consultative manner.

Thank you for your time today

Trish Rea