MEETING REPORT

PATERSON INLET MARINE RESERVE PROPOSAL

Venue: Invercargill Working Men's Club, Invercargill

Date: Wednesday 24 th September 2003

Chair: Rose Grindley, Ministry of Fisheries

Duration: 1.5 hours

Attendance: 37 people including MFish and DoC staff

Rose Grindley opened the meeting by setting the rules, no questions until the speakers had finished and only constructive questions – no statements. The Ministry of Fisheries was holding this meeting to give information, their part in the consultation process to date had been information only.

Background

A marine reserve proposal for Paterson Inlet, Steward Island , has been approved by the Minister of Conservation, subject to concurrence by the Minister of Fisheries.

To obtain relevant information and views on the marine reserve proposal that will assist the Minister of Fisheries in making his concurrence decisions the Ministry of Fisheries is holding two community meetings to provide an outline of the proposal and the submission process.

Process Timeline

Sean Cooper from the Department of Conservation (DoC) presented the history of this proposal and describing the composition of the Inlet as a hole.

• The reserve was first mooted in 1986.
• 1991 a committee was set up to look at the implementation of a reserve.
• 1992 DoC held discussions on how this would be carried out.
• 1995 DoC approved this proposal.
• The main concern at this time was the loss of fishing by non-commercial fishermen.
• 1997 DoC sent their proposal to the Minister of Conservation.
• July 2002 Minister of Conservation approved the reserve.
• The Minister of Transport has also given his approval of the reserve
• Awaiting Minister of Fisheries concurrence

Paterson Inlet Proposal

The Proposal meets section 3 (1) of the Marine Reserves Act 1971. DoC regards the proposal meets the following criteria:

• Schools could conduct research.
• Tube worms mounds found in the Inlet.
• Brachiopod communities in the proposed reserve.

A selection of pictures was shown depicting the seabed. Nothing in this was evident to state that pictures shown were of the actual proposed reserve area.

Nothing in any of these slides were unique to Paterson Inlet, Foveaux Strait or Stewart Island .

Ministry of Fisheries

Ray Voller from the Ministry of Fisheries addressed the meeting. The Minister wants feedback on the proposal and they will be advising him on whether he should be providing the concurrence sought by DoC. The Minister will look at the Ministry report and make an independent decision. The decision will be based on the assessment of the benefits and/or impacts on the area and those affected.

• Deadline for submissions is October 28 th 2003.
• MFish to provide concurrence advice to the Minister of Fisheries by December 12 th 2003.
• 300 people on the MFish database were sent notification of the Paterson Inlet proposal
• Any questions can be directed to Ray on (03) 4740333

Questions & Answers

Question: How will the boundaries of the proposed reserve be marked?

Answer: DoC stated that markers on land would mark it.

Q: DoC stated that the area contained diverse habitat, what are they trying to protect?

A: The reserve was to keep the area pristine and in an undisturbed state. Paterson Inlet is undisturbed and this is why DoC wants the reserve.

The isolation of the area and the relatively cold water will protect it from over exploitation.

Q: What will DoC do if the reserve becomes overpopulated with an influx of commercial charter vessel visitors who impact on the area as has happened in the marine reserves in Fiordland?

A: DoC said there are sensitive areas and it would be up to commercial operators to control impacts to protect the reserve.

Q: Why was this area chosen for a reserve with it being next door to commercial fishing, salmon/mussel farming which is like setting up a swimming area next to sewage outfall.

A: DoC said the commercial usage did not affect the area the reserve would be in.

Q: Will DoC extend the boundaries in the future if approval is given now?

A: MFish state there are no guarantees this would not be done at some time in the future. If there were to be a change the process would have to be redone.

Ministry of Fisheries advised the meeting that an application for a mataitai in Paterson Inlet had been submitted on Friday September 19 th 2003. Local iwi had applied for an area outside the proposed reserve boundaries. This news came as a surprise to all non-commercial fishermen attending the meeting.

Q: Why has Iwi applied for 90% of the Inlet outside the proposed reserve boundaries and is this fait accompli?

A: MFish staff present had not seen the application.

Q: What will happen to the submissions to the proposal?

A: The Ministry of Fisheries will summarise them for the Minister.

Q: What guarantee do we have that the submissions will be actioned/listed to?

A: MFish replied that it would be worth more than their jobs to not take notice of the submissions and to do so would be also personally reprehensible.

Q: Will each submission be numbered?

A: Yes

Q: What credence will MFish put on submissions from offshore i.e. Germany ? Will MFish be doing the same as DoC did and actively solicit submissions from offshore to bolster the numbers in favour?

A: MFish advise it would depend on the submission, they had not thought of this. Submissions that gave reasons for or against would be given precedence over a submission that just said yes/no.

Q: Does MFish have an email address that can be used for sending in submissions?

A: MFish advise they had not though about electronic submissions. Electronic submissions should be sent c/o Ray Voller at his MFish address.

Q: Why has DoC persisted with the reserve when in 1992 there was strong reaction against having a reserve in Paterson Inlet?

A: DoC advises this is due to the current political arena which is favourable to marine reserves.

Q: What is unique about the proposed reserve area?

A: DoC advises it houses little bits of Paterson Inlet. It is representative of the area. The reduction in size of the original proposal has come about after previous public consultation.

Q: What weighting is put on submissions?

A: MFish advise submissions should be sent in as an individual submission with details such as:

•  Pros/cons on why the reserve approval should, or should not be granted.

•  Impact on the area.

•  Effects on non-commercial fishing.

•  Visual damage to the area – number/increase of visitors to such a small area.

•  Damage to seabed life due to increase in diving/mooring of vessels.

•  Loss of fishing for visiting hunters as one hunting block backs onto the proposed reserve and hunters would have to go onto another block to fish (this may not be a welcome move from that block holder and also safety concerns)

Summary

Although this meeting was advertised as a Ministry of Fisheries meeting staff from the Department of Conservation dominated the discussion. As is common in these types of meetings there were strong views expressed from both supporters of the marine reserve and those who did not support the application. All present were encouraged to submit their ideas to the Ministry of Fisheries by October 28 th 2003.

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