Now
and for the Future
|
Cabinet Paper on "Recreational Fisheries Reform" process
and outcomes presented by Minister Hodgson to Cabinet Committee
|
|||||||
|
November, 2001
Cabinet Finance, Minute of Decision FIN Min (01) 2814 Copy Number: 32 This document contains information for the New Zealand Cabinet. It must be treated in confidence and handled in accordance with any security classification, or other endorsement. The information can only be released, including under the Official Information Act 1982, by persons with the appropriate authority. Recreational Fisheries Reform On 14 November 2001, the Cabinet Finance, Infrastructure and Environment Committee:
3.noted that the Minister of Fisheries has 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 paragraph 2 above, within the constraints of the current fisheries management environment which are to:
4 agreed that the Ministry of Fisheries develop and implement an information strategy to improve the nature and extent of information on the recreational harvest; 5 invited the Minister of Fisheries to report to the Cabinet Finance, Infrastructure and Environment Committee (FIN) on the outcome of further analysis and a recommended option for public consultation no later than 1 February 2003; 6 agreed that the Minister of Fisheries report back to FIN with the outcome of public - consultation no later than 1 June 2003. Reference: FIN (01) 216 Hamish Finlay Present: Copies to: Officials
present from: FIN (01) 216 Cabinet Finance, Infrastructure and Environment Committee Copy No 32c This document contains information for the New Zealand Cabinet. It must be treated in confidence and handled in accordance with any security classification, or other endorsement. The information can only be released, including under the Official Information Act 1982, by persons with the appropriate authority.
Purpose
The paper reports on the outcome of the public consultation process
on Previous On 5 July 2000 FIN approved the release of the discussion document
The Joint Working Group recommends:
The Minister
recommends a further period of consultation with a view to Baseline
Costs can be, met within existing baselines. Legislative
None. Timing Issues None indicated. Announcement
The Minister intends to make an announcement on the progress that
has been made with the reforms and the recommended path forward
following Cabinet decisions The Minister indicates that the coalition consultation Minister has been consulted and that caucus consultation is not required. The Minister of Fisheries recommends that the Committee:
3.note that the Minister of Fisheries has 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 paragraph 2 above, within the constraints of the current fisheries management environment which are to:
4 agree
that the Ministry of Fisheries develop and implement an information
strategy to 5 invite the Minister of Fisheries to report to the Cabinet Finance, Infrastructure and Environment committee (FIN) on the outcome of further analysis and a recommended option for public consultation no later than 1 February 2003; 6 agree that the Minister of Fisheries report back to FIN with the outcome of public consultation no later than 1 June 2003. Sarah Egan for Secretary of the Cabinet Copies to: Office of the Minister for Fisheries The Chair RECREATIONAL FISHERIES REFORM Executive Summary
Areas that recreational fishers can access are being affected by:
5 These issues signal a need for:
6 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. 7 There is also a continued need to improve information on recreational take in fisheries where recreational take is significant in order to:
Previous Cabinet Decisions 8 The objectives for this review of the management of recreational fishing are to [FIN (00) M 20/3 refers]:
9 On November 2 1998, Cabinet [CAB (98) M 41/7-11 refers], inter alia:
10 On July 31 2000, Cabinet [FIN (00) M 20/3 refers], inter alia:
11 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 12 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 t their local fisheries. 13 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. 14 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. 15 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. 16 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. 17 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 18 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*. In response to growing public interest, the deadline for submissions was extended from 30 November to 20 December. 19 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. 20 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. 21 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.
22 The key lessons and conclusions that the JWG presented to me are as follows:
23 The recommendations of the JWG were as follows:
24. 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. 25 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. 26 The MCG concluded that the process of further defining rights and management responsibilities would require more tune 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. Objectives of recreational fishing management 27 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. 28 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. lt 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. 29 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." 30 "The National Objectives for marine recreational fishing are:
31 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 32 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. 33 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. 34 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. 35 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. 36 The development of a final policy package for reform will be constrained by a requirement to:
37 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 38 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. 39 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. 40 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:
41 These initiatives will carry a fiscal cost that the Ministry will meet within existing baselines. Indicative costs of potential elements of the strategy are:
Consultation 42 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 43 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 44 The recommendations in this paper are consistent with customary fishing rights and the fisheries Deed of Settlement. Publicity 45 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 46 There are no regulatory impacts or business compliance costs associated with the recommendations in this paper. Recommendations 47 It is recommended that the Committee:
|