Report. Oturei Marae Hui

Transcription

1 Report Oturei Marae Hui A hui to provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in fisheries, an interest in the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment and having particular regard to kaitiakitanga. 22 and 23 April 2010 This hui was dedicated to Judah Heihei, co-chairman of the, who recently passed away. Judah was a generous, dear friend and leader of many. Haere, haere, haere. PO Box 263 Kaikohe contact@hokiangaaccord.co.nz

2 Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...5 APOLOGIES...5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...6 BACKGROUND...8 INTRODUCTION...10 FISHING INTERESTS AND REPRESENTATION...12 IWI LEADERS GROUP...12 TE OHU KAIMOANA...12 CUSTOMARY VS. RECREATIONAL FISHING...12 HOKIANGA ACCORD CHAIRMANSHIP TURBINES PROPOSED FOR KAIPARA HARBOUR...14 INTRODUCTION...14 TURBINE PROPOSAL BUSINESS CASE...14 TURBINE PROPOSAL A NON-COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVE...14 HUI DISCUSSION...18 FISHERIES 2030 POLICY MFISH UPDATE...20 INTRODUCTION...20 DRAFT INDICATORS...21 MFISH PRIORITIES...22 HUI DISCUSSION...22 MFISH TREATY STRATEGY...24 TREATY STRATEGY: KEY LINKS...24 PROPOSAL FOR INPUT AND PARTICIPATION...24 HUI DISCUSSION...25 RECREATIONAL HARVEST SURVEY...27 SUMMARY SESSION...28 NZ SPORT FISHING COUNCIL - UPDATE...30 HUI DISCUSSION...31 SUSTAINABLE SEAWEED MANAGEMENT...32 SEAWEED RESEARCH PROJECTS...34 HUI DISCUSSION...35 HOKIANGA ACCORD SEAWEED SUBMISSIONS...38 INTRODUCTION...38 BEACH CAST SEAWEED...38 April 2010 Hui Report July

3 BLADDER KELP...38 HUI DISCUSSION...39 AQUACULTURE AND FINFISH FARMING...42 AQUACULTURE REFORMS...42 FINFISH FARMING...42 LAND MINING...44 HUI DISCUSSION...44 TE PUNA MATAITAI - UPDATE...48 HUI DISCUSSION...48 RESOLUTION...49 KAHAWAI MANAGEMENT AND ACCORD SUBMISSION...50 INTRODUCTION...50 KAHAWAI REVIEW...50 KAHAWAI HARVEST ESTIMATES...52 HISTORICAL KAHAWAI CATCH...52 KAHAWAI 1 MODELLING EXERCISE...52 HUI DISCUSSION...53 MARINE PROTECTION AND DIVERSITY IN REPRESENTATION...56 GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL...56 RECREATIONAL REPRESENTATION...56 HUI DISCUSSION...57 HIWI THE KIWI GOES FISHING PROJECT - UPDATE...60 Friday 23 rd April 2010 LOCAL TIKANGA AND PERSPECTIVES...62 MFISH ACCORD RELATIONSHIP...62 RECENT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ISSUES...65 UPDATE - DRAFT NORTH ISLAND WEST COAST FINFISH FISHERIES PLAN...66 UPDATE - MAUNGANUI BAY RAHUI...66 UPDATE - GUARDIANS OF HAWKE BAY FISHERIES...67 UPDATE - REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FISHERIES FORUMS...68 UPDATE SEAWEEK UPDATE OVER ARCHING RECREATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE BODY...69 UPDATE HOKIANGA ACCORD PUBLIC AWARENESS...70 SEASONAL FISHING...71 HUI EVALUATION...72 April 2010 Hui Report July

4 Appendices APPENDIX ONE Fisheries 2030 Process Summary...76 APPENDIX TWO - Joint Bladder Kelp Submission APPENDIX THREE - Joint Bladder Kelp Submission APPENDIX FOUR - Letter To Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga A Tangaroa...90 APPENDIX FIVE - More Fish In The Water II Strategy...94 APPENDIX SIX Accord Joint Submission Draft North Island West Coast Finfish Fisheries Plan APPENDIX SEVEN Rahui Support Submission APPENDIX EIGHT Joint T90 Letter Of Endorsement APPENDIX NINE Te Hiku O Te Ika T90 Letter Of Endorsement APPENDIX TEN Correspondence APPENDIX ELEVEN List Of Hui, Updates And Submissions APPENDIX TWELVE Hui Agenda APPENDIX THIRTEEN Glossary April 2010 Hui Report July

5 Acknowledgements Thank you to George Riley, Hally Toia, Scott Macindoe, Clive Monds, Jill Bradley and Tim Haggitt for their time so generously given to review the draft report prior to its completion and publication. MFish were offered the opportunity to review their input into the hui, they declined. Appreciation also goes to Steve Sangster and John Luckens for their assistance in recording this hui on video. This is to facilitate accurate reporting of the event and maintain the principles of te tika, te pono me te tuwhera (being righteous, truthful and transparent). Heartfelt thanks to the ringa wera/kitchen hands/cooks, particularly those who had come from afar to sustain and support the hui. Apologies Larry and Barbara Baldock (Tauranga), Paul Batten (Whangarei), Mark Bellingham and Kirstie Knowles (Forest & Bird), Wayne Bicknell, Richard Burch, Colin Murray and Jonathan Dick (Guardians of Hawke Bay Fisheries), Jerry Garret, Stu Cameron and John Chibnall (NZ Sport Fishing), Matu Clendon, Robert Willoughby and Helen Mountain Harte (Te Rawhiti), Jackie Cooper (Whananaki), Daren Coulston (Hawke Bay), Robbie Cullen (Maungaturoto), Hohepa Epiha and Ngaire Pera (Matauri Bay), Jason Foord, Tom Fox and Martin Irvine (Guardians of the Sea Trust), Bruce Galloway (Auckland), Naida Glavish and Tepania Kingi (Ngati Whatua), Lorraine Hakopa, Sheryl Hart and the NZRFC, Paul Heywood, Vapi Kupenga (Ngati Porou), Mikaera Miru (Kaipara), Tom Moana (Nga Hapu o Te Uru o Tainui), Shelley Naera, Teresa Tepania-Ashton and Allen Wihongi (Ngapuhi), Samara Nicholas (Whananaki), Rob Pooley (Whangarei), Hiwi and Raewyn Rihari (Ngati Rehia), Tom Robben (Paihia), Neha Saigal (Greenpeace), Craig Sinclair (Auckland), Doug Stevens and Peter Dunne (Wellington), Daryl Sykes (Wellington), Tumu and Timoti Morehu te Heuheu (Ngati Tuwharetoa), John Torr (Outboard Boating Club, Whangarei), Ross Webber (Kaipara), Wiremu Wiremu, Kaa and Julie Joyce (Hokianga Ki Te Raki), Abe Witana (Te Rarawa). Hugh Nathan apologised for the absence of many of their kaumatua and hunga kainga [people of the marae] who were supporting whanau at a tangi underway at Naumai marae. April 2010 Hui Report July

6 Executive Summary This document is the record of the hui held at Oturei Marae, Kaipara, on the 22 nd and 23 rd of April This occasion was the fourteenth overnight meeting of the, the mid north iwi fisheries forum. Included in this report is material presented during the hui, other issues and appendices relevant to the Forum s activities. This report was commissioned by the and was written by Trish Rea. Source material for this report was the video taken during the hui. The intention of this Forum is to assist the Minister of Fisheries (the Minister) fulfil, in part, the Crown s ongoing statutory obligation to provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua having a noncommercial interest in fisheries, an interest in the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment while having particular regard to kaitiakitanga. (Fisheries Act 1996, s12 (1) (b)) The brings together the commercial and non-commercial interests of Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua, other northern iwi and hapu, environmental and fishing interest groups. Greenpeace, the Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand, Forest & Bird, option4 and NZ Sport Fishing Council representatives are regular contributors to the Accord s hui. Coastal communities managing their local fisheries and having a wider say in marine protection were popular themes throughout the two-day hui. Several resolutions were reached to achieve the common goal of "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai". Accord chairman Raniera (Sonny) Tau briefly discussed the recent, controversial proposal by several South Island-based people to create an over-arching body to represent all recreational fishing interests. Both Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua were excluded from a March meeting to discuss this initiative and there are questions around the motivation to implement such a regime without consulting with Maori. The Accord will follow this process closely now that the proposal had been presented to the Minister of Fisheries. Ngati Whatua and Te Uri o Hau have serious concerns about Crest Energy s proposal to install up to 200 power-generating turbines at the entrance of the Kaipara Harbour. At 24 metres high, 25 metres wide and 30 metres long these turbines are massive. The major concerns relate to access restrictions and the unknown effects the swinging blades creating electro-magnetic fields will have on the fisheries and harbour ecology. Assistance from forum members was offered and gratefully accepted by Ngati Whatua and Te Uri o Hau. Lively debate followed the Ministry of Fisheries update on the Fisheries 2030 policy. MFish are currently developing indicators to measure their performance against the policy s outcomes. There is ongoing concern that the Ministry does not fully understand the broad nature of non-commercial interests. These interests encompass the environmental, social and cultural needs of all New Zealanders including customary and amateur fishers. MFish are simplifying their Treaty Strategy, which sets out how the Crown through the Ministry intends to meet its statutory obligations to Maori. The Treaty Strategy has key links to Fisheries Iwi Fisheries Plans will be the mechanism used to deliver on these obligations. A major concern for the Accord was whether these plans would have any practical effect given current legislation and policies already in place. MFish welcomed any feedback at and after the hui. There was some discussion before and after MFish left the hui as to whether it was worthwhile developing community fish plans as opposed to Iwi-only plans. Since the last hui the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council has renamed its organisation. It was now the NZ Sport Fishing Council. President, Richard Baker, acknowledged and appreciated the support of Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua in seeking funding from Sport & Recreation New Zealand (SPARC). Confirmation of this support from both Sonny Tau and Naida Glavish was a major boost for NZ Sport Fishing. Jill Bradley and Tim Haggitt are involved in the research and sustainable management of seaweeds in the North Island. Their hui presentations generated wide interest in their ongoing research to determine when seaweeds grow, and optimum harvest levels and seasons. The Accord appreciated Jill and Tim sharing their April 2010 Hui Report July

7 knowledge and concerns. Both committed to providing the Accord with an update when their Waihau Bay research programme is completed. The Accord will seek their advice before drafting any further seaweed submissions. Aquaculture reforms are underway following the release of a government report. Two aspects that will have a major impact are the proposed changes to enable farms to be established outside of existing aquaculture zones, and the possibility that finfish farming will be allowed within areas currently designated for shellfish only. After an excellent presentation by Clive Monds the hui agreed to develop an Aquaculture policy that constituent organisations could distribute to MFish, the Minister, other politicians and interested parties. Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa was still awaiting Ministerial approval for their Te Puna Mataitai application. This northern Bay of Islands initiative enjoyed widespread community support and the 14 hapu/marae represented by Te Komiti were very disappointed that approval had still not been granted. This delay was acutely embarrassing, particularly given the recent passing of Te Komiti chairman Judah Heihei. The resolved to write to the fisheries Minister and reiterate the Crown s obligations to recognise and give effect to the kaitiakitanga aspirations of Te Komiti. After a four-year Court process the Minister is due to make fresh decisions for managing kahawai. There are fears that the available science will be manipulated to enable more of these valuable fish to be purse seined and exported for little value. After a detailed presentation and healthy discussion consensus was reached. The Accord s collective response setting out specific concerns was sent to MFish during the hui. Greenpeace is actively involved in marine protection issues in Aotearoa and overseas. Recent activity has been focused on illegal fishing around the Pacific Islands. Illegal and unreported fishing in the Pacific reduces the numbers of pelagic species that normally travel to New Zealand in summer. Ongoing overfishing could have serious implications for local fishing interests, both Maori and non-maori. The Hiwi the Kiwi Goes Fishing project has been a huge success at primary schools throughout the country. Since the last hui around 140 schools had enjoyed the show designed to inspire children to look after the marine and fresh waterways, promote water safety and fish abundance so there is enough kaimoana for their mokopuna. NZ Sport Fishing would appreciate the support of iwi for this ongoing project. It was frustrating that the relationship between the and Ministry was not improving. The hui agreed that the forum s Working Group would gather to thrash out a clear intention statement, a strategy to achieve that outcome and ways to positively engage with Ben Dalton (MFish Deputy CE Treaty Partnership), the Ministry and Minister. There were a myriad of issues the has responded to since the last hui. A brief outline was given to explain the various submissions and public awareness initiatives undertaken. Following the hui several letters were developed and sent in accordance with the hui s resolutions. Seasonal fishing to avoid spawning season is a regular hot topic at hui. There is a variety of factors that influence spawning times and these can vary from year to year, and between months. This was a complex topic and the required a good understanding of the issues before an agreed position can be reached. There are various experts that can be invited to future hui to discuss this matter. Robust discussions during the two-day hui were interspersed with the occasional tense moment and more often good humour. There are positive signs that the is developing the long-term relationships required to enable iwi, hapu, environmental, and fishing interest groups to work constructively together. It was going to be a busy time between this hui and the next, due in October. People will be kept informed of major issues by and phone. Several new people were co-opted onto the Working Group before the hui finished on Friday afternoon. April 2010 Hui Report July

8 Background Since the inaugural Whitiora Marae hui in 2005 the has been hosted at Oturei Marae twice. The mid north regional iwi fisheries forum has also enjoyed warm hospitality at Whakamaharatanga Marae, Hokianga, five times, returned to Whitiora Marae, Te Tii, twice and enjoyed overnight stays in the Bay of Islands, Naumai, Waipapa and Whakapaumahara Marae. This occasion was the fourteenth overnight hui of the, the mid north iwi fisheries forum. The Accord s Working Group continues to hold meetings at various places, as required. The includes the commercial, non-commercial customary and amateur fishing interests of Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua and other iwi and hapu, environmental and recreational fishing entities. Since the June 2009 hui the NZ Big Game Fishing Council has instituted a name change to NZ Sport Fishing (NZSF). NZ Sport Fishing and fisheries advocacy group option4 fully support the and it s objective of more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai. Over time various environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have become more involved. Representatives from the Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand (ECO), Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand (Greenpeace) and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand (Forest & Bird) are now regular presenters and participants in hui. Each organisation retains their autonomy but has committed to supporting one other on the broader fisheries management issues that have the potential to affect everyone s fishing and environmental interests. As part of the Accord s public awareness initiatives regular Updates are published in the New Zealand Fishing News, other magazines and online. A record of these Updates, details of the forum s previous hui and submissions are in Appendix Eleven. Originally this hui was scheduled to be held at Naumai Marae, Ruawai. Plans changed when Naumai Marae was required for a tangi. The hui moved to Oturei Marae, situated on the Poutu Peninsula, the northwestern arm of the Kaipara Harbour. April 2010 Hui Report July

9 Some of the participants at the fourteenth overnight hui held at Oturei Marae, Kaipara. April April 2010 Hui Report July

10 Introduction It was a mild autumn morning when the hunga kainga [home people] of Oturei Marae welcomed around 39 people to their rohe. This was the second occasion the, the mid north regional iwi fisheries forum, has visited Oturei Marae on the northern shores of the Kaipara Harbour. Representatives from Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua and other iwi and hapu, environmental and amateur fishing interest groups were in attendance. Following the powhiri [welcome] respects and prayers were offered in acknowledgement of the recent passing of the Accord s co-chairman Judah Heihei. Surviving co- chairman Raniera T (Sonny) Tau encouraged the group to settle in for two days of intense discussion, debate and hoped-for consensus on a number of issues. Many of the Pakeha in attendance had not been on a marae before and they were welcome to enjoy the special Kaipara hospitality. Having a smaller group would enable more focused discussions and ample opportunity for everyone to participate. There was a comprehensive range of subjects on the agenda however, due to unforeseen circumstances some topics would be presented by alternative speakers. (Appendix Twelve.) Awaiting this korero [talk] were representatives from Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua, Ngati Kahu, Ngati Rehia, other iwi and hapu, NZ Sport Fishing, option4, Greenpeace, the Environment Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand (ECO), Kaikoura Boating Club and various individuals. Apologies and expressions of support were relayed from various organisations and people. Several updates would be presented on behalf of those who could not be present at the hui. Other people were due to arrive at the hui over the course of the day. Flight delays meant the Ministry of Fisheries officials would not be arriving for several hours. A mihi was given on the arrival of John Beaglehole, Manager of the Office of the Chief Executive (Wayne McNee s office), Ben Dalton, Deputy Chief Executive Treaty Partnership and Obligations to Maori, Natasha Clarke and Otene Rewiti of the Customary Relationship team. It was a special moment for the kaumatua and hunga kainga [home people] of Oturei to welcome Ben Dalton [Ngapuhi, Ngati Porou] to his home Marae in the Kaipara rohe. Jill Bradley, the Managing Director of AgriSea NZ and Tim Haggitt, a seaweed expert and researcher, were both due to give an in-depth presentation on the sustainable management of seaweeds, including a physiological, environmental and scientific perspective of harvesting this important taonga [treasure]. A local priority was the environmental impacts from installing underwater power-generating turbines at the Kaipara Harbour entrance. Ngati Whatua s John Retimana and Mihi Watene of Te Uri o Hau were both due to give the hui a brief history of the consent process and explain the current situation regarding this Crest Energy initiative. Feed-fish farming and recent aquaculture reform proposals were due to be discussed by various people at the hui. Clive Monds of ECO would be outlining specific concerns related to aquaculture and land-mining reforms. Of particular interest was the pending management review of kahawai by MFish. The evening discussion on how the would respond to possible proposals was awaited with interest. An ongoing subject of concern was the inexplicable delay in achieving Ministerial approval for Te Puna Mataitai. Aro Rihari was at the hui to represent Ngati Rehia s interest and explain the latest developments April 2010 Hui Report July

11 from the perspective of Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa. Te Komiti is a collective of 14 hapu/marae from the northern Bay of Islands. Representation of recreational fishing interests was a hot topic prior to the hui. Given Maori s broad interest in fisheries this was of particular relevance, as the majority of fishing for food to feed the whanau is classified by the authorities as recreational fishing. The hui would be given an update on the latest developments, including a report of the recent Auckland meeting where organisers refused entry to both Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua representatives. Expected updates would cover the s submission to MFish on the draft North Island West Coast Finfish Fisheries Plan, recent meetings of the regional recreational fisheries forums and progress of the Guardians of Hawke Bay Fisheries local management initiatives. Following the announcement at the last hui that the Hiwi the Kiwi Goes Fishing education project was underway a further 170 primary schools have booked the Minstrel s show. This programme is designed to inspire children to look after the coastline, the fresh waterways and fish, so there is abundance for their mokopuna. Evan MacKay, Vice President of NZ Sport Fishing, would update the hui on the latest news. Throughout this and other reports recreational fish/fishers/fisheries are referred to as amateur or traditional. The does not accept the word recreational as reflecting the true nature of traditional fishing or food gathering to feed the whanau. Hui participants were supplied with a variety of material, including: Previous hui reports; Bladder kelp submissions, September 2009 and April 2010 (Appendices Two and Three); Maunganui Bay (Deep Water Cove) s186a closure support submission, December 2009 (Appendix Seven); Draft North Island West Coast Finfish Plan submission, October 2009 (Appendix Six); More Fish in the Water II strategy, July 2009 (Appendix Five); A briefing paper, Perspectives on Non-commercial Fishing Interests, developed for the Minister of Fisheries by the Working Group, option4 and the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council, December 2008; and Fisheries Amendment Bill submission to Primary Production Committee, August April 2010 Hui Report July

12 Fishing Interests and Representation Raniera T (Sonny) Tau, Accord co-chairman Rainiera (Sonny) Tau gave a brief overview of several issues that had been addressed since the previous hui in June This included the proposal to create an over-arching body to represent recreational fishing interests, his involvement as a commissioner for Te Ohu Kaimoana and various fisheries management initiatives. Prior to the hui there was a series of torrid s between the organisers of an Auckland-based meeting to discuss the creation of an over-arching body to speak on behalf of all recreational fishing interests. The three organisers, Nelson Cross, Alan Key and Laurel Tierney were all from the South Island. Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua representatives were specifically excluded from the meeting on the basis that only national organisations were invited, and conversation with Maori would occur later in the process. As a consequence, accusations of racism had emerged because Maori were tired of being treated as second-rate cousins. Other developments would be discussed later in the hui. It was concerning that so much energy was going into a process to try and herd numerous organisations and interest groups into one representative body. Historically this had proven to be an impossible task so there were questions about the motivation of those promoting this initiative. Iwi Leaders Group The Government has tried to establish a one-stop representative organisation for the 57 iwi leaders. In response, the iwi representatives agreed they would work together as a loose collective of individual leaders. That is, they would continue to strive for their own iwi s interests, as they had been tasked by their people to do, but they would co-operate on the major issues that affected them all and those that required a collective response. Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua are united on the issue that their collective interests is in maintaining the ongoing right to feed their tamariki [children] and mokopuna [descendents] from a pool of fish that belongs to everyone. It was a major concern that the government seemed determine to sell off the rights to the fisheries as it sees fit. Te Ohu Kaimoana Sonny was grateful for having the support of Northland people to become a Commissioner for Te Ohu Kaimoana (TOKM). Being a Commissioner has given him the opportunity to highlight to other Maori leaders the significance of the recreational fishing right as compared to their statutory, customary right. Customary vs. recreational fishing Fishing with a permit represents a small fraction of the amount of fishing that Maori do percent of the time Ngapuhi fish to feed our babies we are categorised as recreational fishers. This harvest is not recorded or reported as being customary take. There was some support for Maori reporting their every-day catch as customary harvest to ensure there was a record of that catch, and to make sure it was taken into account when the Minister makes an allowance for customary interests when managing particular fish stocks. Fishing industry representatives have recently approached TOKM to discuss the concept of using the uncaught portion of the customary allowances and transferring them into commercial fishing rights. This was an offensive suggestion given that there were many groups, including the, that were striving to have more fish left in the water for future generations. This industry proposal would only benefit the quota owners. April 2010 Hui Report July

13 Ngapuhi s position is clear and Ngati Whatua has supported this view, When there is tension between commercial and our non-commercial take, [that is] our customary rights, our commercial machine will give way to our customary machine. Other iwi have not been so quick to accept this stance for a variety of reasons, one is that many iwi are still focused on organising their commercial interests. Also, many Maori are oblivious to the importance of their recreational fishing right as compared to their customary fishing right, which requires a permit. chairmanship Sonny confirmed his intention to step down from chairing the on a day-to-day basis and running the hui. It was time to encourage others to step into that role. His workload was increasing and Ngapuhi s Treaty claims process was underway. Runanga representatives Paul Haddon and Joe Bristowe were at the hui and they would be addressing this issue later. George Riley from the Runanga s operations unit was also at the hui so he too would contribute to that discussion. The recent passing away of co-chairman Judah Heihei had a profound effect on both the and Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi. It has taken a while to realise the extent of Judah s influence and the roles that now needed to be filled by someone else. Paul Haddon expressed regret, but understanding, on why Sonny needed to step aside as chairman of the. He also confirmed that earlier discussions had identified two competent people, from within the Ngapuhi Runanga that could fill the role of designated chair. If Sonny was available he would be chairman. If unavailable then either George Riley or Allen Wihongi could be chair. Tepania Kingi and John Retimana from Ngati Whatua were other possibilities for the chair s role. However, Ngati Whatua would have to make that decision themselves. In the ensuing discussion some concerns were expressed at losing Sonny s participation and more specifically his unambiguous, truthful and humorous manner in which he manages the conversations throughout the hui. Sonny confirmed he would remain engaged in the Accord s proceedings; he merely needed to allocate some responsibilities to other people. This would help Sonny to balance his work and home-life needs. Irrespective of who took over the chairman s role, both option4 and the NZ Sport Fishing teams remained committed to the. The kotahitanga [unity] that had developed in the forum over the past five years, between tangata whenua and non-maori, remained strong. This relationship was recently tested during the preliminary organisation of the Buckland s Beach meeting to discuss the creation of an over-arching body to represent all amateur fishing interests. The management committee of NZ Sport Fishing unanimously decided not to participate in that meeting because both Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua were denied entry. Trish Rea and Jason Foord attended the meeting as observers and worked with Kim Walshe to develop a report for the combined interest groups. This was a clear demonstration of the resolve to stand together and work through the Accord to achieve abundance and good fisheries management for the benefit of everyone s mokopuna [descendants]. At this stage there was strength in diversity and having different groups advocating for their own issues, but working collectively to address the concerns that impacted on all interest groups. Only the meeting organisers could confirm if they were motivated by the government s purported offer of $3 million to establish a single representative body for amateur interests. Due to flight schedules the four Ministry of Fisheries officials were not due to arrive at the hui for another hour so the hui would proceed with other agenda items until MFish arrived at Oturei Marae. April 2010 Hui Report July

14 200 Turbines Proposed for Kaipara Harbour John Retimana, Ngati Whatua, Ruawai Introduction John Retimana was born just down the road at Te Kopuru and was brought up at Naumai Marae. John welcomed the late arrivals to the hui and apologised for the inconvenience of shifting the hui from Naumai to Oturei Marae. Due to a recent death Naumai Marae has been reserved for the grieving whanau, in accordance with Tikanga Maori. It was a privilege for Ngati Whatua and the local hapu Te Uri o Hau to host the. Oturei was one of 35 marae situated around the Kaipara Harbour and the Accord has been to several of those marae. As a group the Accord has great political potential to preserve the right of people to fish for food, for people s mokopuna [descendants] to partake of that right and ensure the commercial realities were controlled for the benefit of the people. John has a small interest in salmon farming in the South Island. He was pleasantly surprised to discover the international demand for fish grown in our local waterways. John provided some information on this venture for the hui participants to browse through. Turbine proposal business case Crest Energy has been through a consent process to gain authorisation to install up to 200 power-generating turbines at the entrance to the Kaipara Harbour. While there is a business-case that shows the installation is viable and could be lucrative for assenting Maori, this has to be balanced against the long-term adverse impacts on the environment, fisheries and local communities. There were several business groups courting different hapu in the hope of achieving agreement for their proposal from local Maori. This has created a fractious environment, which was preventing agreement amongst the collective interests of the Harbour. Ecologically, installing turbines in the Harbour was not a clever idea. In principle the installation is wrong. However, the northern Wairoa and Dargaville areas lacked any major development that could provide employment and business opportunities for the locals. The area was still only famous for growing kumara. The Kaipara district needed some innovative thinking and investment to rejuvenate the area. From a business perspective the money being offered was attractive as it was monolithic. Turbine proposal a non-commercial perspective Mihi Watene, Te Uri o Hau, Poutu Mihi Kapa-Watene is the chairperson of Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust. She has attended previous Accord hui in her role as a director of Environs Holdings, through the Settlement Trust. Mihi marveled at the strength and unity amongst the various groups of the. Mihi acknowledged Sonny s chairmanship skills and caused a chuckle when recalling Sonny making similar stand-down statements at the Naumai Marae hui, in April Background Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust has recently restructured is operations due to financial difficulties. Despite their dire financial position, Te Uri o Hau has spent around $300,000 opposing the Crest Energy proposal to install turbines at the Kaipara Harbour entrance. Regardless of the rumours being bandied about, there was absolutely no financial incentive for Te Uri o Hau to accept the Crest Energy proposal. April 2010 Hui Report July

15 Figure 1: Proposed installation site for 200 turbines marked in purple, northern channel of the Kaipara Harbour entrance. April 2010 Hui Report July

16 Having undergone the pre-hearing and Environmental Court stages of the resource application it was plainly obvious that the applicants can afford, and do pay, experts to produce evidence to support their proposal. It was likely Te Uri o Hau would lose their fight against the proposal. If so that loss could cost the Trust another $100,000, which they will need to find. Initially Crest want to install 20 turbines however, the resource consent applies to 200 units. It was a major concern that these machines have not been tested anywhere else in the world. Te Uri o Hau has requested the installation of one unit and for Crest Energy to monitor the impacts. Crest Energy has opposed this suggestion. Despite the costs, Te Uri o Hau was determined to continue their opposition to the proposal to install these turbines that measure 24 metres high, 25m wide and 30m long. Concerns and next steps Te Uri o Hau was seeking the support of as many organisations as possible to help them in their struggle. With the benefit of hindsight, their approach was wrong and their campaign was weakened because of the absence of professional, scientific advice. If they lose their Environment Court proceedings Te Uri o Hau has one other legal avenue available, which is where the additional costs will be generated. Throughout the whole process the Settlement Trust has held hui around their rohe. The response from the people has been consistent Kaipara people do not want the installation to go ahead. This opposition is based on the huge impacts such a development would have on the health of the Harbour. The Kaipara is special; it has the second largest coastline of any harbour in the world. The coastline extends 3,350 kilometres and covers 500 square hectares. In addition, the Harbour is not pristine. It has been affected by many decades of land mismanagement and run-off. Any effort to plant and fence off waterways will be negated by the impacts of installing these massive machines that are over seven storeys high. There were fears for the ongoing health of the fisheries, both coastal and harbour, for the environmental effects of having massive, swinging turbines blades creating electro-magnetic fields, the impacts of chemical contamination from the anti-foul and other paints used on the machines, and the potential to chop up passing fish and marine organisms. Another concern was that once the consent had been granted, Crest Energy will on-sell that right to another commercial entity and any damage control will become the responsibility of tangata whenua. Mihi commended the progress being made by the and that the kaupapa remained for "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai". Further information More information on the west coast fisheries, including snapper, could be found in the 2009 NIWA report produced for the Ministry of Fisheries. That report confirmed around 98 percent of all the snapper off the North Island west coast (Snapper 8 management area) originated as juvenile fish from the Kaipara Harbour April 2010 Hui Report July

17 Figure 2: Depiction of a proposed power-generating turbine for the Kaipara Harbour entrance. This turbine measures 24 metres high x 25 metres wide x 30 metres long. April 2010 Hui Report July

18 Crest Energy has limited information on its website at Te Uri o Hau would appreciate the assistance of anyone at this hui to help their campaign. Mihi and Deborah Harding, the Trust s Social and Environmental Services Manager, would be at the hui for the rest of the day. Hui Discussion Mihi clarified that Te Uri o Hau has been through the original consent process with the Northland Regional Council and also a pre-hearing at Whangarei District Court. The Environment Court has issued an interim decision and Crest Energy was expected to meet certain criteria before consent would be granted. It was very concerning to everyone that the consent process seemed stacked against local interests. Crest Energy has maximised their resources to employ appropriate expert witnesses, and even kaumatua, to provide supporting evidence. Te Uri o Hau has few resources and no academics to produce a similar level of expertise to the Courts. This lack of resources was not unique to Te Uri o Hau; it was a common problem for many Maori organisations. Tim Haggitt is a seaweed researcher who has previously reviewed the Kaipara Harbour environment for the Northland and Auckland Regional Councils. He has been involved in Environment Court proceedings against increasing sand mining off the west coast and the proposed oyster farms over seagrass beds. There are a lot of issues involving the Kaipara which all relate back to the sustainability of snapper, other finfish and their environment. Regarding the tidal generators, Tim was one of the original consultants appointed by Crest Energy to conduct a survey. Eventually the researchers left the project because they were not satisfied with the way Crest Energy were using the data. Crest then contracted other consultants to continue the research. There were many undetermined factors that could influence the passage of fish through the Harbour entrance. As such, the effects on mammals, great white sharks, gurnard, snapper and skates and rays, which use their electro-magnetic senses, were unknown. Installing multiple turbines will require a fishing prohibition around the installation, this would mean denying people access to the very popular fishing destination, the Graveyard. Underwater turbines were being used in Europe; however, the biological evidence of any impacts is minimal due to the difficulty of the large size of the generator and measuring effects on highly mobile finfish species. It was also unclear if the heavy west coast iron-sands would damage the tidal generators or their moving parts. Difficulties arose in the Environment Court proceedings because opposing parties tended to have their own scientists presenting conflicting evidence to support their claims. Consequently, the presiding Judge was not always adequately informed to make a balanced decision. Several people at the hui offered their assistance and would continue the discussions with Mihi, Deborah and John Retimana during the lunch break. April 2010 Hui Report July

19 Front (L R): John Beaglehole (MFish), Victor Holloway (Ngati Kahu), Ben Dalton (MFish). Oturei Marae, Kaipara. April April 2010 Hui Report July

20 Fisheries 2030 Policy MFish Update John Beaglehole, Manager, Office of the Chief Executive MFish Introduction John has recently been employed by the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) to manage the office of Wayne McNee, the Chief Executive. He and Ben Dalton are members of the Ministry s Senior Leadership Team (SLT). He has a legal background and was very keen to enlighten the hui on recent progress with the Fisheries 2030 project. John acknowledged there were many people at the hui that have been involved in earlier discussions about the 2030 project. Several had attended a multi-stakeholder meeting in February to develop aspects of the programme. A report from the s attendees at that meeting was available at the hui and online at Fisheries 2030 was a policy to guide all MFish activities, how and what they deliver as an organisation. The Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley, and his Cabinet colleagues have approved the 2030 policy, its goals and outcomes. The Minister now expects the Ministry s activities to be geared towards achieving If their activities do not relate to 2030 then they need to explain why they are doing it. We [MFish] need to be really clear with the people we are dealing with, about, [look], if you are asking us to do something that s not in Fisheries 2030, it s not to say it s impossible, but it s a wee bit of a hurdle. John was very aware from the earlier consultation processes that not all people agree with the final Fisheries 2030 document. However, this is the way of documents that go through a consultation process. We ve still got it and this is what we are trying to deliver. John welcomed comments from the hui during his presentation. He went on to explain, using a PowerPoint presentation 2, that the 2030 policy was based on a single goal of New Zealanders maximising benefits from the use of fisheries within environmental limits. This goal is supported by use and environment outcomes, which reflect the fundamentals of the Fisheries Act These outcomes are also reinforced by governance conditions. Now that the outcomes have been clarified MFish were initiating a process to develop Indicators that would enable them to measure whether they were making progress towards achieving the outcomes, and ultimately the goal. Several factors would influence the final choice of indicators. Indicators will need to be capable of measuring progress i.e. indicators need to be a good guide. MFish also need to consider the costs involved. For example, a statistically reliable recreational fishers satisfaction survey costs millions of dollars. MFish may need to make trade-offs in terms of what they can deliver and what are the best indicators. MFish want to ensure they can monitor their progress towards achieving the outcomes sought. Work on the indicators initially occurred at MFish headquarters. A meeting with stakeholders was held in February, more MFish effort was applied afterwards, and shortly there will be a formal consultation process on relevant indicators. Following that a panel of experts will assist in the development of the indicators, which will be improved in future years, as necessary. Hui comment 2030 public consultation Around two years ago Te Runanga-a-Iwi o Ngati Kahu was sent a copy of the draft Fisheries 2030 document. Te Runanga considered the draft in detail, because of the implications for tangata whenua, and 2 Update on Fisheries 2030, and monitoring sector performance, Ministry of Fisheries, John Beaglehole, 22 April April 2010 Hui Report July

21 submitted its feedback to MFish. Now, after several years of silence from MFish, the final policy was being presented and people were being asked for their views on the finer points. It was not right that tangata whenua and the public were being asked for their views and then totally bypassed when it comes to the finalisation of this or any other policy. MFish response John could not comment on what happened to the earlier submissions, but tried to explain his understanding of how things had developed. An initial draft would have been developed by MFish, approved by the Minister and distributed for public consultation. Any submissions would have been considered by the Ministry and advised to the Minister before his and the Cabinet s final approval. Hui comment It was notable and inadequate that, after all the effort made by many people, there were only fourteen words difference between the draft 2030 action plan and the plan included in the final 2030 policy. A summary of the process had been written for the non-commercial environmental and fisheries Alliance. (Appendix One) That was distributed in September 2009 and is online at MFish comment public consultation John was asked to clarify the government s understanding of consultation. He advised, consultation is, I ve got an idea about where I want to go, but I am interested in knowing what your thoughts are about it. He went onto emphasise that ideas within Ministries do change even though it may not be apparent and interested parties may feel their submissions are not taken into account. Ultimately it is the Minister s decision if changes are necessary. Consultation isn t going in to say[ing], hey look I ve got a completely open mind and I would like you guys to tell me where I want to go. It s saying, here s some thoughts I ve got, tell me about what you reckon. Draft indicators John welcomed feedback as he went through the draft indicators for the environment, recreational and customary interests, and commercial fishing. Immediate feedback was that the 2030 policy, the outcomes and even the draft indicators were so broad and, without taking an ecosystem management approach, they were meaningless, not measurable and just frothy words for no definitive outcome. Draft environmental indicator John presented a draft indicator to achieve the 2030 environment outcome: Biodiversity and the function of ecological systems, including trophic linkages, are conserved. This description sparked some mirth, and an observation that it was unfortunate that MFish has failed to recognise or use any of the many Maori words available to describe the inter-connectedness in the natural environment. Instead, MFish has chosen to use language that is both complex and meaningless. John was then asked to explain, in simple terms, how the draft environmental indicator would make any management difference to, not just the current Crest Energy proposal to install turbines in the ecologically sensitive Kaipara Harbour, but for environmental threats in any part of the country. Follow-up - John did not know the details of the Kaipara proposal nor what the Ministry s response had been, so he was not willing to make up a statement at the hui. He did offer to reply to the hui at a later date with further details about the Kaipara proposal. April 2010 Hui Report July

22 MFish priorities The Fisheries Act 1996 required the Minister to balance the use and environmental factors associated with fisheries management. There has already been vigorous debate about the 2030 details from all interest groups so that was an indication to MFish that this policy does matter. MFish will be expected to report on their performance, as measured against the 2030 outcomes, so they will be using the indicators as both a guide and a measure. In their view 2030 was not meaningless. Hui Discussion Fisheries Act requirements The Minister of Fisheries was legally obliged to fulfil the Purpose and Principles of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act), which encompasses sustainability, environmental protection and utilisation, while providing for people s social, economic and cultural wellbeing. There did not seem to be anything new in the 2030 policy that was not already in the Act. John advised the first set of indicators would be developed this year and improved over time, as necessary. These indicators would be used as a score-card to measure MFish performance. Questions were raised as to what action MFish would take if it was found in later years that the 2030 outcomes and indictors were not being met. An example could be that the turbines in the Kaipara were having an adverse effect on the Harbour s biodiversity. John would not be drawn into making binding statements about future Ministry action regarding the environmental outcomes or specifics such as the Kaipara situation. He was keen to move onto discussing the range of draft indicators designed to achieve outcomes for recreational, customary and commercial fishing interests. John mentioned the Minister s announcement made a day prior to the hui that there was going to be a national, recreational harvest survey. This would measure how many people were fishing, how often and their catch. Ben Dalton would talk later in the hui about Iwi Fisheries Plans, but successful development of plans and numbers of tangata tiaki/kaitiaki [guardians] would be an indicator of how well MFish was delivering for customary interests. Non-commercial interests Lively debate followed as to what MFish s definition of customary fishing was. John clarified customary was fishing for no commercial gain or trade. It did not include the quota associated with the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act The law does allow commercial vessels to be used when harvesting for a customary purpose, using a permit. Legally, any non-commercial fishing without a permit is categorised as recreational. However, the fish caught and smoked prior to the hui was taken by recreational fishers, but for a customary purpose. Tikanga Maori [practice] was to harvest food to feed manuhiri [visitors]. Often this food is gathered without a formal permit, but under the guidance of a kaumatua. It was clarified for John that the ongoing concern is that MFish do not understand the broad nature of customary interests in a fishery, and may in the future set a customary allowance based solely on the amount of fish taken and recorded on permits. April 2010 Hui Report July

23 Similar fears are held for recreational interests, in that the Ministry may set allowances based solely on what they estimate is actually taken, rather than following the Fisheries Act. The Act stipulates the Minister must allow for all non-commercial interests, both customary and recreational. Customary regulations There were serious misgivings about the current customary regulations. In practical terms the law was in conflict with Maori lore [traditions]. Both the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 and Regulation 27 needed to be reviewed, to better reflect customary interests. John emphasised that some form of control was needed to combat illegal fishing, to ensure the ongoing viability of fisheries. Poaching was a major issue in many areas of the country. In response, it was noted that permits were not a control mechanism. Control stems from having people believing in the integrity of the system and complying with tikanga/practices and directions from the people who understood the dynamics of the local fisheries. Definition of fisheries Throughout the 2030 process MFish refer to thriving customary, amateur and commercial fisheries. Separate fisheries do not exist, with the exception of Toheroa, the single customary fishery. In reality there are fisheries that all New Zealanders participate or have an interest in. Those fisheries need to be abundant to enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. Only the Minister can provide for that abundance as prescribed by the Fisheries Act Allocations versus allowances In response to John s comments about the Minister s role to allocate fisheries, it was clarified that section 21 of the Act directs the Minister of Fisheries to allow for non-commercial fishing interests, both customary and recreational, before an allocation is made for commercial interests. There is no allocation for noncommercial interests. The allowance made by the Minister must take into account all New Zealanders interests, not just what is harvested. Those interests include environmental, social and cultural factors. Many inshore fisheries are below acceptable levels and require "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai" to enable people to provide for their well-being. April 2010 Hui Report July

24 MFish Treaty Strategy Ben Dalton, Deputy CE Treaty Partnership and Obligations to Maori, MFish Ben Dalton [Ngapuhi, Ngati Porou] has been with the Ministry of Fisheries since January He is skilled in Treaty Strategies but has less experience in fisheries management issues. Ben has been Chief Executive of Te Runanga A Iwi o Ngapuhi twice; prior to, and after, Te Runanga received the fisheries settlement assets. In his previous job Ben was the Chief Executive of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. Before moving to Wellington Ben lived in Tai Tokerau for around 20 years and spent 24 years in Otara, Manukau. For the past few months Ben has been concentrating on simplifying the Ministry s Treaty Strategy, which sets out how MFish intends to meet its statutory obligations to Maori. The Crown s obligations regarding fisheries are specified in the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and several other pieces of legislation. Presently MFish are working on establishing an engagement framework to identify: What their obligations are; Who the obligation applies to, is it Iwi, hapu or tangata whenua? How MFish will know if that obligation has been met; and Who within MFish is responsible for delivering on that obligation? This Treaty Strategy has key links to the Fisheries 2030 policy. Until such time as the 2030 policy is revoked all work within the Ministry will be guided by the goals and outcomes specified. Treaty Strategy: Key links Fisheries 2030 The Treaty Partnership is realised through the Crown and Maori clearly defining their respective rights and responsibilities in terms of governance and management of fisheries resources; Seek consensus on how to fully implement the Fisheries Deed of Settlement and historic settlements. Fisheries Treaty Strategy Vision Tangata whenua and the Crown working in partnership to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability: Having particular regard to Kaitiakitanga; With the Crown meeting its obligations to Maori. Ministry Treaty Strategy Outcome Deliver the Government s fisheries and aquaculture obligations to Maori more effectively. Proposal for input and participation Fundamental to the whole programme is deciding how Maori will have input and participation in the manner in which the Ministry sets its policies for overall fisheries management, not just for customary, recreational or commercial interests. Iwi Fisheries Plans are the tool that will deliver on these obligations. Forums that are aligned to the current Fisheries Management Areas will develop Iwi Fisheries Plans. For example, FMA 1 (east coast North Island) extends from North Cape to Cape Runaway on the East Coast. These plans will seek to integrate the commercial and non-commercial interests of Maori. April 2010 Hui Report July

25 Some Maori have already expressed fears that integration in terms of the Iwi Fisheries Plans will require combining the hapu-based customary regulations management with the commercial interests managed by the Runanga. This is not the main issue. The objective of this process is to work out how to bring the interests of all parties together, not how you combine the two separate organisations. The proposal is how do you get the interests of both parts of iwi fisheries management together to sit at the table, and through that the generation of Iwi Fish Plans, which will be aligned to the Fisheries Management Areas. Iwi Fisheries Plans will contribute to the national Fish Plan framework. Five initial national plans are already underway. As of next year Iwi Fisheries Plans will feed into the MFish Annual Operating Plans. This is the proposal and it is now Ben and the Ministry s job to talk with people to determine if this approach is realistic or not. One of the issues for mid north iwi and MFish was to determine whether the constitutes an iwi fisheries forum, and what are the criteria for a fisheries forum? Currently there are a few issues that need to be resolved before some answers are apparent. The criteria for iwi forums, and even what goes into an Iwi Fisheries Plan, have not been confirmed yet. In simple terms, Iwi Fisheries Plans will seek to articulate the aspirations of the people in a particular area and how they intend to manage the fisheries. Given the earlier discussion and experiences of consultation the real test will be to get real input and participation into this development process and eventual outcomes. Ben s job was to monitor and report to the Chief Executive whether that input and participation occurs and if that input is given effect, or just ignored by MFish officials. Hui Discussion Feedback to MFish It was important to emphasise the statutory nature of the obligations on the Crown. As Ben had pointed out earlier, this was not just another consultation process that may or may not be successful. These were ongoing rights that Maori had through the Treaty Settlement. A long-term strategy was more acceptable than any programme that was viewed as just another project in a long list of failures. MFish needs to clarify the extent of this project and the tenure of the Iwi Fisheries Plans. MFish needs to be aware that tangata whenua need, and want, to be able to manaaki its manuhiri, that is, provide hospitality to guests. These protocols will differ between regions and even within Fisheries Management Areas. Fisheries Plans need to include comprehensive information on the fisheries resource. For example, there will be times when particular fish are in the harbours, off the beach or offshore. Spawning times and periods when young fish are present and need to be avoided, and regional differences, are the types of information that ought to be included in a fish plan. Fisheries Plans ought to be treated as community fish plans because they affect everyone, not just Maori. It was ironic that Maori were being asked to develop Iwi Fisheries Plans at the same time that the public were engaging in developing fish plans for the same regions and the same fish! April 2010 Hui Report July

26 MFish response Ben noted that there were statutory obligations on the Crown that required delivery to Maori and that included Iwi Fisheries Plans. He was committed to delivering the best possible outcome for both Maori and the Crown. Input and participation There was little doubt that the Crown has historically given lightweight consideration to its obligations under section 12 of the Fisheries Act Developing Iwi Fisheries Plan will require a lot of resources, time and effort from tangata whenua and the Crown. A major concern was whether Iwi Fisheries Plans would have any practical effect given current legislation and policies already in place. The Fisheries Act directs the Minister to take account of a fish plan but there are now Harvest Strategy Standards that apply to fisheries management and national fish plans are also being developed. Unless a hierarchy is clear then conflict may arise and people maybe left disappointed after investing so much energy into a project they thought would make a difference. For example, Bay of Islands Maori may wish to have a particular species managed at a higher level of abundance so there are more fish available, however, those aspirations may not be deliverable if there are different management strategies applied over FMA 1, the whole Fisheries Management Area. Ben acknowledged that similar concerns had been raised earlier. It was a risk, in trying to gather everyone s aspirations into one project, that some people s expectations will not be realised due to conflicts with other s wish-list or current management strategies. MFish was aware this was going to be a major issue that will need to be addressed, but at the moment there was no apparent, easy answer. It was appropriate, even though Sonny Tau had left the hui (for whanau reasons), to repeat Ngapuhi s position that was clarified at this and earlier hui. Sonny had said, When there is tension between commercial and our non-commercial take, [that is] our customary rights, our commercial machine will give way to our customary machine. This was a gift from Ngapuhi Iwi to anyone endeavouring to put together a plan. It is clear guidance of where the Runanga stand in relation to peoples interests. Application of Kaitiakitanga A major blockage for the is the perceived inaction on behalf of the Ministry to comply with the Fisheries Act and most importantly the obligation on the Crown to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga, as set out in section 12 of the Fisheries Act. While the Accord s constituent parties were attempting to practice kaitiakitanga, it did not seem the Ministry were applying the same effort. The Ministry s inaction, or inability, to respond in a precautionary way in relation to the Kaipara turbine issue was one example. It seemed Ministry were intent on continuing to look internally for solutions and produce policy statements rather than relying on the Fisheries Act and discuss possible answers with other people such as the Accord. After thirteen previous overnight hui and the Kahawai Legal Challenge the forum was very familiar with the Fisheries Act and the statutory obligations on the Crown. MFish response Kaitiakitanga Ben acknowledged that MFish has not always got their strategies right in the past. However, he has been employed because both the Minister and Chief Executive, Wayne McNee, were committed to fulfilling the Crown s obligations to Maori in regards to fishing. April 2010 Hui Report July

27 If MFish has got the strategy wrong then people need to say so. Part of the reason why both he and John Beaglehole were at the hui was to gather people s thoughts. MFish were open to discussion both at and after the hui. Deeds of agreement It was frustrating for Te Uri o Hau and others with deeds of settlement that they continued to wrestle with MFish to achieve what had been agreed in their Memorandum of Understanding with the Crown. Te Uri o Hau looked forward to talking more with Ben to try and accomplish what had been anticipated and agreed in their 2002 Settlement. Te Uri o Hau confirmed it was very keen to have input and participation as opposed to consultation with MFish to achieve the best outcome for their people and the community. Regarding fish plans, that maybe an opportunity to include some customary practices such as appropriate harvesting times and methods. Although with the changing weather patterns the seasons and fish patterns are not as defined as they were in the past. Recreational harvest survey Ministry staff had to leave the hui to catch their flights home. Prior to their departure John Beaglehole advised the hui that the Minister of Fisheries had announced the previous evening that a major recreational harvest survey would be initiated this coming summer. The objective is to have a better understanding of how many people are fishing and what is being caught. This information will assist the Minister when making decisions about recreational allowances. It will be a large-scale multi-species survey, supplemented by other measures such as boat ramp and aerial over-flight surveys and web cameras to monitor traffic at boat ramps. Total cost for this survey will be around $5 million. Hui closing statements John was asked to advise the Minister that Te Uri o Hau has an environmental problem with the Kaipara, and specifically with the sustainability of west coast snapper stocks if the underwater power generators are installed. Te Uri o Hau want to meet with the Minister to discuss the Crest Energy turbine proposal and their Settlement programme. John confirmed MFish is very aware of their legal obligations in regards to maintaining sustainability. The Ministry s role was to advise the Minister on how to achieve the right balance between sustainability and use of the fisheries. If MFish is going to ask over 50 iwi to provide input and participation into developing Iwi Fisheries Plans then it was incumbent on the Ministry to ensure it was a meaningful exercise with tangible outcomes. Development of fish plans required much time and effort from all involved. Many of the people at the hui had been involved in the development of North Island West Coast finfish plan process over two years. There was much disappointment when MFish revealed recently that the final plan was no longer going to be a separate document. Latest news is that the plan may or may not become a chapter in the National Finfish Fisheries Plan. John did not have time to address his second agenda item Research on Amateur Fisheries. He left the PowerPoint presentation at the hui for later discussion. John welcomes any questions arising from that discussion. MFish departed the hui at 3.15pm. April 2010 Hui Report July

28 Summary session There was a wide range of views expressed about the two presentations after MFish left the hui. Many comments related to the seeming inaction or inability of MFish or the Minister to oppose the Crest Energy turbine proposal, on the grounds of sustainability and environmental degradation. On a positive note, there was the opportunity to engage with MFish on the Iwi Fisheries Plan proposal to ensure adequate input and participation into the development of meaningful plans that would benefit the whole community, not just Maori. MFish are suggesting that regional forums will develop an Iwi Fisheries Plans for a complete Fisheries Management Area (FMA). Currently tangata kaitiaki have the right to develop a fish plan for their rohe, so will that mean those people will be tangata kaitiaki for the whole FMA? This issue will need to be clarified. The has and is the mid north iwi fisheries forum. How that fits in with the Ministry s plan for FMA-based Iwi forums is up to them to figure out. The Accord was available to help them sort out that issue. The Accord was a good model to develop a community fish plan as opposed to an Iwi-only fish plan. In terms of heirachy, MFish will also need to clarify the terms have regard, take into account, have particular regard, and which term applies to each plan, considering there will possibly be around 50 Iwi Fisheries Plans, five national plans and other government policies. For many years the Accord has strongly advocated for recognition of the Act s s12(1)(b) statutory obligation on the Crown to provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua into fisheries management. This Iwi Fisheries Plan initiative seems to be an acknowledgement of that obligation. The Accord can take some comfort that the Ministry is now asking for input and participation, whereas before it merely relied on consultation. It was frustrating that current legislation entitled the Minister of Fisheries to veto a marine reserve proposal, aimed at achieving marine protection, yet there did not seem to be the same authority available to veto a project such as the Crest turbines that would put west coast snapper stocks at risk. A change of legislation to give the fisheries Minister this entitlement may be a long-term solution. In the meantime, it might be appropriate to write a letter from the Accord asking MFish or the Minister for an explanation as to what input they have had into the consent process and why they are not opposing the project on environmental grounds. Without any evidence to the contrary, it seems MFish are taking an anti-precautionary management approach in regards to the Kaipara Crest Energy proposal, as opposed to the statutory obligation to take a precautionary approach when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. Most fisheries management decisions are based on the cost to the industry because dollar values are easy to measure. No real assessment is made of the environmental costs because those values are difficult to quantify. After hearing the MFish korero it was plainly obvious the and its constituent groups needed to continue working together to achieve "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai". It is also clear that the initial stage of developing regional iwi fisheries forums is over. Management focus will be on the Iwi Fisheries Plan encompassing the whole Fisheries Management Area. Aspirations for community-led management risks being swallowed up by the needs of the wider management area. This will be a major challenge in most areas. April 2010 Hui Report July

29 MFish still seem committed to the paradigm of separate recreational and customary interests. The announcement of a $5M survey to measure recreational catch does not mention customary interests. The results from the survey will most likely mean changes to the non-commercial allowances. Clearly the customary regime has been distorted beyond what those real interests are. The Accord needs to help the Ministry to implement measures that benefit the community and sustain the fisheries for future generations of New Zealanders. April 2010 Hui Report July

30 NZ Sport Fishing Council - Update Richard Baker, President, NZ Sport Fishing Council Richard Baker apologised for his brief visit to the hui, he had to return to Auckland by 7pm. He was very pleased to be able to catch up with old friends and meet a few new people at this hui. As President of NZ Sport Fishing (NZSF) Richard was keen to give an update on how things had changed for his Council, management team and recreational fishing representation. The Council has changed its name from the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council to the NZ Sport Fishing Council. They maintain their 58 clubs nationwide and have around 32,000 members, most of whom were sustenance fishers keen to catch a feed for their whanau. Since mid 2009 Sport & Recreation New Zealand (SPARC) has recognised their Council as representing recreational fishing in New Zealand. This was an outcome of a change in focus, from big game fishing to sustenance fishing, fisheries management, representation and advocacy for non-commercial fishing interests. At the last hui Sonny challenged Richard to analyse the representation of the recreational sector, determine what the ideal outcome would be and how the Council could contribute to better advocacy of noncommercial interests. This had proven to be a huge challenge, but the 14-member management committee was prepared to develop a more professional approach to ensure the children of Aotearoa inherited healthy fisheries. There has been some controversial reaction to the Council s initiative to re-brand itself and establish their organisation as an entity with a fulltime manager employing contractors, such as John Holdsworth and Trish Rea, to engage in the fisheries management processes. Evan MacKay, the Council s Vice-President, was also at the hui. Currently he is working as the Council s education and liaison person supporting the successful Hiwi the Kiwi Goes Fishing project that is being presented by Mark de Lacy, aka The Minstrel. This programme is designed for primary school children and teaches them about fishing, how to protect the marine environment and water safety. Around 170 primary schools have booked The Minstrel s show for Bill Ross accompanied Richard to the hui. Bill was working with the management committee to develop a strategic and business plan in anticipation of applying for SPARC funding. SPARC has contestable funds available to support programmes aimed at children and participation in fishing activities. On behalf of NZ Sport Fishing, Richard thanked the option4 team for their effort and the Guardians of the Sea Charitable Trust Nga Kaitiaki mo Tangaroa for their ongoing support of the Hiwi the Kiwi project. The Guardians recently approved a further grant for $10,000 towards the production of a Hiwi the Kiwi Goes Fishing book and CD of stories and songs. Richard and NZSF warmly appreciated the support of Black Magic Tackle, who has contributed the initial $10,000 to the Trust. Rick Wakelin and Black Magic contributes $10 from the sale of every gamefishing lure from the option4 lure range to support input to various fisheries management processes and now the Hiwi the Kiwi project. Acknowledgement was given to John Holdsworth and the environmental organisations at the hui who had contributed to the development of the Council s recent Southern Bluefin Tuna submission. This was a fishery in serious decline and NZSF had advocated for commercial fishing effort to be curtailed until the stock had recovered to sustainable levels. NZSF was promoting a tag and release programme for their members and other recreational fishers in an effort to enhance research into this vulnerable species. A major event for NZSF was the upcoming Hutchwilco Boat Show in Auckland. Show organisers have provided a large stand to showcase the Council and the Hiwi the Kiwi programme. It was encouraging to April 2010 Hui Report July

31 have the retail fishing industry supporting the NZSF and their project aimed at children and getting them involved in fishing. Both Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua have confirmed, through Sonny Tau and Naida Glavish, they will support NZSF in their SPARC funding application. This iwi support was a major boost and widely appreciated by the NZ Sport Fishing Council. Hui Discussion Richard confirmed NZSF had not yet applied for SPARC funding. Their focus has been on consolidating their management structure and business plan. However, notice had been received that SPARC has available a contestable fund of $1.2 million per annum for the next three years. These funds are to promote outdoor recreation. Applications for grants closed mid-may. Given the current political climate the NZSF were encouraged to include a Maori component in their funding applications. Doing so could prove to be the key to success. Another avenue is to apply for funding, on the basis of the sporting component, to the local District Health Board in relation to the Healthy eating - Healthy action programme. The support from Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua for the Council s SPARC grant applications was pleasing. It was also recognition of the strong relationship that had developed between the organisations involved in the. It was an ambitious project that the NZ Sport Fishing had embarked on, given that fishing is the fourth most popular activity for adults in Aotearoa. Richard and his management team were congratulated on their effort to represent the non-commercial interests of approximately 600,000 thousand people who go fishing every year. The whanau and friends of those fishers benefit from their effort, as do the thousands of people who do not fish but have an interest in having a healthy marine environment and abundant fisheries. The Council realises that maintaining a healthy marine environment and abundant fish stocks will not be an easy task. There are difficulties because of the fishing industry s stranglehold on management processes and successive government s desire to generate national wealth from selling off as much fish as possible. April 2010 Hui Report July

32 Sustainable Seaweed Management Jill Bradley, Director, AgriSea New Zealand Jill is a Director of AgriSea NZ Ltd, a family owned and operated company based in Paeroa, Waikato. Their family operates two companies, AgriSea NZ and Ocean Organics. They produce liquid seaweed concentrates for the home gardener, and pasture and animal health concentrates for agriculture and horticulture. Tim Haggitt, a seaweed expert, accompanied Jill to the hui and would be explaining the aquaculture research projects underway in the Bay of Plenty. It was refreshing for both Jill and Tim to be at the hui and discussing seaweed in environmental, social and cultural terms. So often their discussions are around the commercial industry s effort to bulk-harvest for maximum economic benefit. Jill s family companies only use beach-cast seaweed, never attached, living plants. The 20-year moratorium on issuing new permits to harvest living seaweed has restricted commercial extraction and potentially risky practices. Prior to the moratorium there were dealers who were the middle-men between the harvesters and the commercial industries, with very little control over methods and sustainable management. Jill advised their target species is the native Ecklonia radiata, which is prolific in the northern regions. Jill s son Tane travels the country collecting seaweed direct from the local people who harvest the seaweed off the beach. This helps to build relationships and ensure sustainable harvesting. Seaweeds are the bottom of the marine trophic level. There is no other single fishery in this country that has the potential to negatively affect almost every other high-value inshore fishery. So when the Ministry of Fisheries talks about putting seaweed into the quota management system, as they had recently, that may not be the optimum management framework. In the mid-1990s a group of seaweed experts gathered in Wellington to discuss the sustainability of seaweeds. These people were very conscious of the need for sustainable development of seaweeds. They formed the Seaweed Association of New Zealand (SANZ). The patron of SANZ is Jeanette Fitzsimons. Dr. Wendy Nelson (NIWA) and Dr. Lesley Rhodes from the Cawthron Institute are also involved in SANZ. Jill brought along to the hui SANZ material and explained that they have a guiding principle and objectives which include: To promote and ensure the ecological sustainability of seaweed in New Zealand; and To build a long-term, sustainable seaweed industry for our country. Organisations with similar environmental principles are welcome to join SANZ. Visit for more information. New Zealand is a small country and SANZ appreciates the need to explore our resources and export goods to sustain our nation. SANZ agree with the quota management system overall. However, SANZ definitely disagrees with managing seaweeds within the quota management system, as it currently operates. SANZ has made a point of getting to know each Minister of Fisheries and explaining the downsides of some management proposals and the multiple benefits of sustaining healthy seaweeds. At this stage the potential exists for New Zealand to develop a local management system (LMS) for seaweeds whereby it is not sold off as a private property right through the quota management system. The local management system could be managed by ensuring: Only licence holders commercially fish for seaweed; One local commercial seaweed fisher per area; April 2010 Hui Report July

33 Potential seaweed fishers research their local fisheries to determine When the seaweed spores When the seaweed grows When not to cut seaweed How big (or limited) the seaweed cutting swathe should be. Fishers submit an annual plan for their harvesting area as part of a longer, five-year plan. This plan could contain details such as How much harvesting the local area can sustain; and Harvest area and biomass controls to ensure other species are not affected by widespread extraction i.e. trophic linkages are maintained. AgriSea has committed to only gathering beach-cast seaweed until more is known about the potential effects of harvesting attached, living seaweeds. Jill s family is currently funding Tim Haggitt s research into sustainable management of attached, living seaweeds because there is no government funding available. They are happy to fund the five-year research programme because it is vital for the long-term health of the future proposed seaweed industry and the coastal marine ecosystem. It was encouraging that the Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley, recently agreed, in principle, that no other seaweeds will be introduced into the quota management system until at least 2011, when initial results from Tim s research will be available. April 2010 Hui Report July

34 Seaweed Research Projects Tim Haggitt, Seaweed expert and researcher Tim Haggitt is an expert on seaweeds and is based at Leigh, Cape Rodney. He is currently researching the effects of harvesting stands of living native seaweed, Ecklonia radiata, in Waihau Bay, in the eastern Bay of Plenty. Tim s objective is to gather sufficient information to develop a fisheries plan and management framework for the sustainable harvesting of seaweed. Presently there is very limited information on Ecklonia radiata and the effects of large-scale harvesting. Before a species, especially one of such ecological importance, goes into the quota management system it was important to know the fundamentals such as: How the species reproduces; Where the species occurs; When you can and should not harvest the species; and How much of the species can you sustainably harvest? Tim s current research is being conducted between Cape Runaway and Waihau Bay on the northern side of East Cape. Tim is working in conjunction with Te Whanau-A-Apanui and two local seaweed harvesters are assisting Tim with the project. It is a community-based project that has the approval of two local hapu. Research findings are presented annually to these hapu and reported to the Ministry of Fisheries. Tim gave a brief overview of the reproductive cycle of seaweed. In winter, the time of highest reproductive output, adult kelp release spores that settle on the reefs, fertilise and then germinate in spring. Kelp matures and generally becomes reproductive in approximately two years. A harvesting protocol has been developed to maintain biodiversity and a safe site for young kelp to grow. This is achieved by: Leaving the plant s holdfast (anchor system), attached to the reef; Harvesting only the blades (leaves) and stems (stipe); No harvesting during winter, the peak reproductive period for kelp; and Only harvesting at depths greater than 10m. During their research they are measuring a variety of species and factors including: Ecklonia radiata abundance, biomass, coverage and size; Other kelp abundance, biomass, coverage and size; Gastropod numbers and other molluscs, including paua; Sponges and effects of sediment after heavy rainfall; Light levels and effects of algal blooms that reduce light levels; Nutrient levels; Water temperature; Fish diversity; and Lobster (crayfish) abundance. In the Waihau Bay area there is an abundance of juvenile crayfish in the kelp beds that are being harvested so it was important to know the impacts of harvesting seaweed when devising a management plan. April 2010 Hui Report July

35 Kelp has an estimated lifespan of five years. They are very sensitive to algal blooms. Tim provided graphic images of a once-healthy bed of four-year old kelp that had died back due to a spring/summer photoplankton bloom. From a harvesting perspective it was important to take these events into account. For example, if the die-off occurred in summer and a fisher was expecting to harvest that kelp bed in autumn then there would be nothing left to harvest. Long-term studies, such as the five-year research project in Waihau Bay, were critical to understand: How often and when die-offs occur; and Why die-offs occur. Hui Discussion Tim confirmed that old age for Ecklonia radiata is around five years, so there is a level of natural mortality. As kelp ages it seems the plants are more vulnerable to stress and can be severely affected by events such as an algal bloom, which reduce natural light levels. During their research various plots were harvested at different times. It was notable that the plots harvested in spring (September to late November) seem to have recovered, but the area harvested in Autumn (March to May) has not regenerated as well. These preliminary results fit with the biological patterns of reproduction and growth for Ecklonia radiata. It was noted that overseas experience has seen commercial interests move from harvesting wild kelp stocks to farming on artificial structures. This approach allows more control over cultivation, means less environmental impacts and reduced risk for investors. Both Tim and Jill explained that part of their strategy was determining the potential for locals to farm managed plots and re-seed fallow areas. Re-seeding kelp, to encourage re-growth in the marine environment, has been successfully achieved in New Zealand. Tim advised the evidence suggests Ecklonia radiata does not grow well on rope structures. However, there has been some success in Japan for growing kelp on submerged concrete structures. Using artificial structures would enable growers to maximise the benefits of sunlight while minimising impacts on wild stocks. Tim confirmed it would take a minimum of five years research to adequately understand the effects of harvesting on Ecklonia radiata itself, the gastropods that live on the kelp, the sponge, fish and lobster communities. Changing oceanographic climate also has an effect. Currently New Zealand is experiencing an El Nino climate phase, two years ago there was La Nina conditions. These patterns create a different a suite of nutrient levels, water temperatures and light levels that affected the kelp stands. Juvenile fish gathered in the kelp beds. Tim had witnessed young snapper, moki, schools of kahawai and john dory during their fish counts in both the control and harvested areas. Kina seem to prefer the juvenile kelp plants. Adult kelp has higher phlorotannin content; this appears to make them less palatable. Ecklonia radiata has been found in the diet of crayfish and greenbone. The biodiversity on the plant blades (leaves) is very high. These creatures attract fish such as spotties, which in turn attract larger fish to the vicinity. Therefore, kelp is critical as food and habitat for multiple species. April 2010 Hui Report July

36 Kelp has very high social and cultural value. Given that a moratorium has existed for twenty years it was difficult to determine what a kilo of Ecklonia radiata is worth commercially. A kilo of dry Macrocystis pyrifera (Bladder kelp) is worth between $15 and $25 wholesale. A kilo of dry kelp is equivalent to around five to six kilos of wet kelp. Jill advised caution for anyone buying overseas seaweed powder. Most of those powders are byproducts that have undergone extractions, looks black and dead. Jill s recommendation: If you cannot smell the sea in a seaweed powder, do not buy it. As public awareness increases and more concerns are raised about the commercial harvesting of kelp it would be helpful to have access to a list of Frequently Asked Questions. A FAQ list on the Seaweed Association of New Zealand (SANZ) website would be ideal. Jill will consider this idea, discuss it with her colleagues and advise the outcome. It was very worthwhile having both Jill Bradley and Tim Haggitt at the hui and sharing their information on seaweeds, kelp biology, marine diversity and the potential for sustainable harvesting practices. Both committed to attending a future hui to present their findings once their research is completed. Completion date will be around late April 2010 Hui Report July

37 April 2010 Hui Report July

38 Seaweed Submissions Trish Rea, analyst, option4 Introduction Trish Rea works with a number of organisations that advocate for "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai". She has participated in all 14 hui and is a fisheries analyst and advisor to the, other iwi and hapu, the NZ Sport Fishing and option4 teams. Trish develops draft submissions for these organisations in response to MFish proposals. Recently the Ministry issued management options for Bladder Kelp and Beach-cast seaweed. Beach cast seaweed In June 2009 the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) issued three options for the future management of beach-cast seaweed in the North Island. MFish proposed to open more areas to the commercial harvest of brown and green beach cast seaweed. Beach cast seaweed is the weed washed up on the beach. MFish received seventeen submissions in response to their proposals. option4 did not submit, but advised both MFish and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Biosecurity that the team shared the environmental concerns expressed in the Wellington Recreational Fisher's submission, and endorsed that submission 3. Te Runanga-a-Iwi o Ngati Kahu, based in Kaitaia, produced a very strong submission in support of retaining the status quo. Their concerns were based on the impacts of increased vehicle traffic on beaches and that seaweed supports creatures that are a valuable food source for inshore fish. Forest & Bird did not support the extension of the existing rules to harvest beachcast seaweed. They also recommended a review of current rules governing commercial harvesting of seaweed. In September 2009 the Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley, agreed to extend the areas open to commercial harvesting of seaweeds in the North Island, except in prohibited and ecologically sensitive areas. Those decisions were effective from October last year. More information is online at Bladder kelp In August 2009 MFish issued proposals for introducing Bladder kelp in Areas 3 and 4, around the South Island, into the quota management system (QMS) from October The Ministry outlined the potential economic growth opportunities from harvesting attached, live Bladder kelp. MFish acknowledged that this seaweed is an important habitat-forming species so will need to be carefully managed to ensure its sustainability. Although the South Island seems many miles removed from Te Tai Tokerau, excessive commercial harvesting of living seaweed could have serious implications for the sustainability of all other inshore fisheries. option4 and the jointly submitted in September 2009 that Bladder kelp in all areas is not introduced into the quota management system and no private property rights ought to be given away for this valuable species 4. (Appendix Two) Bladder kelp has very high ecological, environmental, social and cultural values. It is a taonga [treasure] that needs to be conserved so the environment can sustain itself and our mokopuna [descendants]. This was April 2010 Hui Report July

39 unlikely if mechanical harvesting methods were permitted if Bladder kelp was introduced into the quota management system. Te Ngaru Roa aa Maui (Raglan), Forest & Bird and the Wellington Recreational Fisher's Association also submitted on the proposals. In November 2009 the Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley agreed with his Ministry's advice and decided to introduce Bladder Kelp in Areas 3 and 4 into the quota management system. Following the Minister s decision MFish consulted, in March 2010, on the commercial harvesting limits that would apply to attached, live Bladder kelp seaweed in FMA 3 and 4. A week prior to the hui option4 and the jointly submitted again 5, along with Forest & Bird and the Wellington Recreational Fishers. (Appendix Three) option4 and the Accord advocated the management proposals were unlawful, in that they breached the Purpose and Principles (ss8, 9 and 10) of the Fisheries Act 1996, and explicitly undermined stated government policy, including Fisheries The Minister s decision is likely before or around September This will be in time for the new commercial fishing year, which starts on 1 October. More information is online at Hui Discussion Trish was not aware of any limitation on how much beach cast seaweed could be collected by people to use at home in their gardens. Evan MacKay confirmed that in the north an MFish permit was required if people intended to sell the beach cast seaweed for commercial gain. In some areas Council approval may also be required, if the beach cast seaweed was being on-sold. Permits used by commercial fishers stipulated catch limits for the licence holder. Traditionally fisheries were managed by input controls such as net lengths, sizes, hook limits, seasons and areas. These controls, if implemented correctly, can be equated to Kaitiakitanga - best practice or common sense. Input controls recognise the needs of the fishery, the environment and modify people s behaviour. As a species is introduced into the quota management system (QMS) these input controls are usually abandoned and replaced by output controls, even though there is legislative authority to impose controls within the QMS. These output controls are designed to limit the numbers of kilos or tonnes of fish that are removed from a fishery. In reality, it is a system that counts what is landed, and does not necessarily take into account the tonnes of fish that are killed in the process of landing that catch. Over time this loss can add up to thousands of tonnes of unaccounted loss. Once a fishery enters the quota management system property rights to those fish are divided up amongst commercial fishers. These rights are perpetual, that is they have an unlimited lifespan. These rights can be bought and sold like any common property. Many fishers and coastal communities in Tai Tokerau have been devastated by the effects of corporate giants buying off the quota that was once owned and fished by locals. 5 April 2010 Hui Report July

40 The promised husbandry, caring for the fishery s future, has not eventuated even after more than 20 years of the quota management system being in place. Prior to the 1996 introduction of the quota management system it was proposed that the coastal area be managed to enable rotational fishing. This was essentially farming the marine environment by dividing the inshore area out to 3 nautical miles (nm) into small management blocks with vessel restrictions, having larger blocks between 3nm and 12nm, and even bigger management blocks outside the 12nm zone where the larger fishing vessels could operate. The Ministry and corporate fishing companies, such as Sanfords, rejected this proposal. MFish objected on the grounds that it was too hard to manage such a system. With today s technology it would be fairly straightforward to manage such a system. However, the quota management system has evolved to a stage where it was not possible to implement such a regime without a complete overhaul of the Fisheries Act and quota rights. It seems Sanfords has a policy of owning New Zealand s fisheries. The quota management system is being used as a tool to gain monopoly control of the fisheries, rather than gaining maximum profit for the community as a whole. A flaw in the current Fisheries Act means section 17B can be used to force the Minister into introducing a species into the quota management system (QMS) and, as a consequence, issue perpetual property rights to that fishery. This flaw was exposed during the earlier court action initiated by a commercial seaweed harvester, and subsequent proposals to introduce Bladder Kelp into the QMS. April 2010 Hui Report July

41 Kelvin Davis and John Retimana. Oturei Marae, Kaipara. April April 2010 Hui Report July

42 Aquaculture and Finfish Farming Clive Monds, Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand Clive Monds is a spokesperson for Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand (ECO). ECO is an umbrella group of environmental and conservation organisations. Clive is based in Thames. He has been actively involved in land mining issues and spent more than 20 years addressing fisheries and environmental concerns. Clive has discussed finfish farming at earlier hui. Aquaculture reforms Introduction The government and some industry representatives were concerned that aquaculture development has been held up since 2004 by an inefficient, complex authorisation process and the lack of new space allocations for marine farms. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed in early August 2009 to provide the government with recommendations that aim to streamline the application and management processes so that greater returns are generated. Their report, recommendations and action points were released in mid-october and titled, Re- Starting Aquaculture, Report of the Technical Advisory Group 6. The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) released the TAG report in early November. Submissions in response were due by 16 December There were 223 submissions in response to the proposals. A government decision was due very soon. Clive would not be surprised if most of the TAG recommendations were implemented. *On 27 April the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Phil Heatley, announced plans for the future management of aquaculture to enable the growth in sales to $1 billion by Major issues for non-commercial interests One objective of the reforms was to provide consistency through national standards by appointing a Minister of Aquaculture and an Aquaculture Agency within the Ministry of Fisheries. A national standard for aquaculture sounds impressive, but there was a certain irony in that statement. Non-commercial interests have been waiting for national standards in fisheries since before the fish plan process was initiated in There is only one standard in place to date. Finfish Farming There are two main aspects of the proposed aquaculture reforms that will have a major impact on aquaculture, they are: Changes to enable aquaculture operations to be established outside existing approved areas; and Reforms to give farmers the right to develop finfish operations within areas currently designated only for shellfish farming. A major concern of finfish farming is the exploitation of wild stocks of food chain species such as pilchards and sardines. Mass harvesting of these species could have severe impacts on kahawai, kingfish and other populations that depend on these fish for sustenance. Clive explained that fish cage farming of tuna in South Australia has dramatically increased the demand for both pilchards and sardines. The total catch of these two species has grown from a few thousand tonnes in the early 1990s to become the largest fishery by volume in the country around 40,000 to 50,000 tonnes per April 2010 Hui Report July

43 annum. Despite this increase farmers still require importation of large tonnages of feed from overseas. These imports could pose serious risk to the local marine environment. Fish feed The amount of wild fish required to produce one kilo of farmed fish will vary over a range of factors depending on species farmed and the percentage of fish meal/oil in feed stock. Annual global production is in the range of 6-7 million tonnes of fishmeal and a little under one million tonnes of fish oil except during the periodic El Niño years. This requires an annual catch of million tonnes of feed-grade fish and unwanted fish processing waste; this means that four to five kilos of wet fish yield one kilo of fish oil and dry fishmeal. [Source - IFFO, the International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation.] The food conversion ratio (FCR) varies from species to species. Aquaculture industry sources indicate that the food conversion ratio for salmon is relatively low, but it is higher for other species. A good rule of thumb would be that 2-5 kg of feed yields one kilo of farmed fish. Multiply that by the 4-5k ratio for the fishmeal produces a range of 8-25 per kg of farmed fish. For example: 4 to 5 kilos of wet fish = 1 kilo of fish oil and dry fishmeal (fish feed) 2 to 5 kilos of fish feed = 1 kilo of farmed fish One kilo of farmed fish = between 8 and 25 kilos of fish product. Information from IFFO, the industrial producers of fishmeal, shows that production is leveling off. There is a decreasing amount of fish oil and fishmeal available because the global catch of wild fisheries is declining. There is a certain contradiction in the global situation, where countries want to increase finfish farming at a time when wild fish stocks are decreasing and demand for fishmeal and oil is growing. There is also increasing competition for fish oil from the health food products industry. Currently MFish consider there is no sustainability risk because the feed being used for salmon farming is Peruvian anchovies. It is anticipated that these will also be the base source of feed for new finfish farms. Moreover, the Regional Councils, who administer aquaculture, do not have the jurisdiction to deal with sustainability issues or creating a certification process for the food that will be used for farming operations. The major issue of fish feed for any increase in finfish farming is falling between the cracks with no single entity responsible for addressing any impacts. Presently New Zealand s baitfish species such as anchovies and pilchards are under-fished, but using the South Australian example these bait species will rapidly become over-fished. This would then threaten the whole food chain, with consequences for kahawai, kingfish and other important fisheries. These concerns have been expressed by a number of environmental organisations at meetings with MFish and their CEO, but the message seems to have fallen on deaf ears. There is no recognition in the Technical Advisory Group s aquaculture report of this risk, nor any measures to address how a plethora of finfish farms will be sustained. This omission is a very serious sustainability threat. April 2010 Hui Report July

44 Land mining Clive went on to discuss the application to mine sediments off the Thames township coast. The flat area of Thames is built on mine tailings from historic gold mines. Deposits of mercury, cyanide and small amounts of gold were washed into the sea and over the years these have been covered by more benign sediment. There are concerns that any seabed mining would reactivate and bring to the surface unwanted deposits, which could eventually be ingested by marine organisms and end up in the food chain sustaining people. Even though the Tui mine in the hills above Thames was shut down around 40 years ago large amounts of zinc, iron, manganese, arsenic, cadmium and lead are still discharging into local waterways. Recent proposals to mine areas in the Coromandel have raised objections based on the potential environmental risk. It was very concerning that these potential mining operations would be established at the same time that marine farming was due to expand in the Firth of Thames, one of the major aquaculture areas in New Zealand. Submissions on the government s proposed legislative changes to enable mining on Conservation land close on 4 May Clive encouraged people to read the information available at the hui, fill out a submission form or visit to learn more and send an online submission. Both Greenpeace and Forest & Bird have information on their websites and online submission facilities. Hui Discussion Clive confirmed that Environment Waikato, the regional council for Thames, has conducted consistent water quality tests and the amounts of toxins described were documented. Aquaculture has been a feature in the Firth of Thames for many years. Clive was asked to clarify whether the tests conducted by these aquaculture farmers had shown traces of contamination. Clive confirmed that seafood taken from the Hauraki Gulf has elevated mercury levels, but not to a dangerous level. Essentially the bulk of land mining was occurring 80 to 100 years ago and commercial fishing around the Firth was limited during that time. Any increase in mining activity, particularly around the Thames foreshore is likely to send a pulse of mercury into the food chain. This was particularly concerning for the local flatfish (flounder) fishery, the Gulf s snapper fishery, and because the Firth was a known breeding area for sharks. Section 12 of the Fisheries Act 1996 requires the Crown to have particular regard for Kaitiakitanga when fisheries management decisions are made. There seems to be a major disparity between the various pieces of legislation that s12 can be ignored in matters that will have an impact on fisheries, such as land or seabed mining. Clive has discussed these concerns with MFish, but they have dismissed these matters on the basis that it is not a sustainability issue, because New Zealand s fish stocks are not currently being affected. If there is to be a major expansion of finfish farming in Aotearoa the very least we need to do is: Consider how these farmed fish will be fed; and Ensure the legislation provides for a robust system that ensures there is minimal damage from this activity on other fisheries and the environment. April 2010 Hui Report July

45 Any mass extraction of baitfish will severely impact on the seabird populations. Mammals such as dolphin are also susceptible to this exploitation. Coastal bird numbers had already drastically reduced due to the lack of kahawai, from bulk harvesting and purse seining. Clive agreed that other products such as soy were being trialled as feed for farmed finfish. Those were essentially fillers, but there was still a fundamental requirement for the trace elements found in fish oil. Given the relatively cheap availability of wild baitfish stocks in New Zealand these will be targeted first before importation of feed is considered. There were biosecurity risks associated with importing any feed that will be used in the marine environment. It was worth noting the Australian example of biosecurity risks. The local baitfish population suffered massive depletion due to being targeted for farm feed. Diseases also spread from the introduced fishmeal into the local bait fisheries. Having aquaculture around Wilson s Bay in the Firth of Thames was concerning and a cautious approach ought to be taken if there was any expansion. Ted Howard spent 17 years commercially fishing for flounder in the Firth and is very familiar with the Wilson s Bay area. He worked with a number of researchers studying the area and they made some interesting discoveries. Flounder were spawning in the Wilson s Bay area. To avoid the mussels growing on the seabed the flounder eggs developed the ability to go up in the water column and stay there until they were too big to be eaten by the mussels. The eggs would then sink to the seabed where they could survive. Now it seems like the authorities are willing to place mussel farms in almost all sheltered waterways. It is likely that this will have a major impact on the productivity of many important wild fisheries like flounder, snapper, blue cod, mullet and many others. In Wilson s Bay it means flounder biomass is being converted into mussels. Local commercial flounder fishers have expressed their concerns to MFish and the Minister about the effects of the mussel farms on their ability to catch their quota. Neither seems to be concerned that these fishers are having to fish in areas further away from Wilson s Bay. It was notable that the Wilson s Bay Aquaculture Management Area was only partially developed, Block A is hardly used at present. They have just started farming another 700 hectares in Block B. There will be a huge increase in mussel biomass and the farmers want to grow a few hectares of kingfish in amongst the mussels. Mussel farming was appropriate in areas where the shellfish are eating algae. Mussel farms are highly inappropriate for areas where they are eating fish spawn; that is because rows of mussels hanging on ropes act as an inverted reef. In spawning areas these mussel reefs are turning valuable fish spawn into cheap mussels, which is contrary to both Ministry policy to maximise value from New Zealand s fisheries or the objective of "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai". Worldwide there were two significant areas that produced masses of anchovies, Peru and northern Japan. The Peruvian fishery had collapsed but managed to recover. It appeared that these two sites had the ideal environment and food source to sustain the anchovy population and ongoing mass extraction. Acknowledgement needed to be given to the productivity of these two fisheries. April 2010 Hui Report July

46 It also needed to be acknowledged that neither New Zealand nor Australia seemed to have a fishery or productive area of this magnitude. So the available baitfish ought to be used conservatively, if at all, for farming operations. Clive agreed that krill in Antarctica is being targeted as a source of fish oil for therapeutic products. Krill forms 80 percent of the base of the Antarctic food chain, right up to the whales. Traditionally little attention has been given to baitfish and krill because they have not been targeted en masse. Worldwide demand for fish oil is driving this exploitation. Another outcome is that New Zealanders could eventually consume these farmed fish. It was important to ensure both ethical and environmental concerns were addressed before mass farming occurred. Kaitiakitanga [stewardship] was the responsibility of everyone including the Minister of Fisheries. There is a clear disconnection between the behaviour on land and sea, between the mountain-to-sea approach and the lack of co-ordination of various Ministries and territorial authorities. In South Australia finfish are farmed in cages that constantly need shifting to new areas because of the degradation caused by faecal waste. The food conversion rate, from fish feed to farmed fish is concerning, especially the worse-case scenario of 25:1; this is not sustainable. There are three keys to successfully managing aquaculture, they are: Sustainable supply of fish feed; Clear management responsibility and tools to manage environmental impacts; and Robust regulatory framework to effectively manage the interface between the agencies responsible for land, sea and fisheries management. These factors are non-existent in New Zealand. Following dinner the hui worked collectively to draft a resolution setting out the s position on aquaculture. The draft statement would be circulated to the various constituent groups after the hui, to generate feedback and finalise an agreed statement. On completion this statement would be distributed to the Minister and Ministry of Fisheries, other politicians and interested parties. April 2010 Hui Report July

47 Figure 3: Proposed area for Te Puna Mataitai in the northern Bay of Islands. April 2010 Hui Report July

48 Te Puna Mataitai - Update Joe Bristowe and Paul Haddon, Kaitiaki, Ngapuhi Judah Heihei, the s co-chairman, was due to give the hui this update on Te Puna Mataitai application. Judah passed away at the end of March leaving a yawning gap in many people s individual life and various groups, including Te Runanga A Iwi o Ngapuhi and Ngati Rehia. Unfortunately Aro Rihari and the Ngati Rehia contingent had left the hui earlier so Te Runanga Trustees Joe Bristowe and Paul Haddon were asked to provide some background information on Te Puna Mataitai process. Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa lodged a formal application for Te Puna Mataitai with the Ministry of Fisheries on 2 April Te Komiti represents 14 hapu/marae with an interest in the northern Bay of Islands. Rohe moana was gazetted in 2002, according to the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations The proposed mataitai is around 7.6 square miles and extends from Purerua Peninsula, out to the Black Rocks and north past the Ninepin to Kowhatuhuri Point. Judah was instrumental in raising public awareness and support for the mataitai. Opposition from the community and other hapu had been settled. Despite the best effort of Judah and Te Komiti they could not resolve, by negotiation, the one objection from a commercial fisherman who utilises the area within the proposed mataitai. MFish were due to assess the application in late 2009 and provide advice to the Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley, so he could approve (or not approve) the application. This mataitai initiative follows a Taiapure application sent to MFish in That application has since lapsed. Te Komiti has spent more than ten years trying to gain community and Ministry support for their effort to deliver kaitiakitanga in their rohe moana [marine area]. The delay in approval was very frustrating given that Judah has passed away without enjoying a satisfactory outcome and despite Te Komiti completing the necessary application process. Joe Bristowe went onto describe the difficulties that hapu from the southern Bay of Islands were having with implementing similar marine protection initiatives. Several of the objectors to their proposals had moved offshore and there were communication difficulties, but MFish has insisted they address each objection individually. Hui Discussion There was increasing frustration at the Ministry s lack of response to various mataitai and taiapure applications around the motu [country]. It seems the government has decided to put these processes on hold, despite the statutory obligations the Crown had to fulfil in regards to protecting the interests of tangata whenua. At the last hui there was discussion around the Ministry s letter to the Iwi Reference Group 8, dated March 2009, advising that, due to their organisational review MFish staff would no longer be promoting mataitai or assisting tangata whenua with drafting any applications. Irrespective of the MFish review, Te Komiti had the willing support from the community and completed all the necessary steps to achieve approval for the mataitai application. There is a certain irony in that the one commercial objector was actually fishing quota leased from Ngapuhi. It was not clear if there were any breaches of good faith negotiation/process on the Minister or Ministry s part. It seemed unreasonable to set Maori down the path of achieving these protection measures and not 8 page 78. April 2010 Hui Report July

49 deciding on the outcome or meeting the Crown s obligations in a timely manner. A question to the Ombudsman s office may clarify this issue. There is a major contradiction in the definition of consultation that tangata whenua have to meet when compared with the Crown s application of the same term. There is a double standard being applied to the mataitai process. Despite the earnest effort of Te Komiti the one objection could not be resolved, whereas there does not seem to be any processes where MFish, or any Ministry of the Crown, is expected to achieve 100 percent consensus before it implements its own initiatives. This expectation on tangata whenua reeks of inconsistency and obstruction. At Judah s tangi there was a deep sense of whakamaa [embarrassment] that the Crown could treat tangata whenua, and Te Komiti in this instance, with such disrespect. The would be remiss in not addressing this issue on behalf of Judah and Te Komiti. Resolution It was resolved that the Accord s constituent groups would work together to develop firstly a letter to Te Komiti seeking their approval to write to the Minister of Fisheries, and secondly a letter to the Minister reiterating the Crown s obligations to recognise and give effect to the kaitiakitanga aspirations of Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa. This correspondence to the Minister ought to stipulate a timeframe for approval of the Mataitai. **Following the hui a letter was sent to Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa seeking their approval to write to the Minister. (Refer Appendix Four.) April 2010 Hui Report July

50 Kahawai Management and Accord Submission John Holdsworth, Blue Water Marine Research, Tutukaka Introduction John Holdsworth is a fisheries scientist based in Tutukaka, Whangarei. John and Pete Saul are directors of Blue Water Marine Research, a company that focuses on New Zealand s pelagic species such as marlin, tuna and kingfish. They also provide technical fisheries management advice to many non-commercial fishing interest groups. John has been to most hui and enjoyed them all. One of John s main tasks is to attend and report on the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) science and Working Group meetings. He then interprets the technical information, advises possible responses and writes draft submissions for groups such as the NZ Sport Fishing Council (ex New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council). John also wrote several affidavits and had a major input into the evidence put to the Courts during the fouryear Kahawai Legal Challenge 9, which both Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua had supported. Kahawai review Currently MFish are developing proposals for the future management of kahawai nationally. After public consultation the Minister will decide how much to set aside as an allowance for non-commercial interests and what the total allowable catch (TAC) and total allowable commercial catch (TACC) ought to be. The Minister will need to make a fresh decision for each of the six fish stocks that make up the kahawai fishery. (Refer Figure 4.) Within the proposals there is likely to be several options for allowances, TAC and TACCs. The most controversy is likely to be around the allowances and catch limits for Kahawai 1 (KAH1), which extends from North Cape to East Cape. As proven through history, allowing high commercial catches has a major effect on how many fish were available to non-commercial fishers. Two days before the hui both John and Trish Rea attended a Working Group meeting with MFish officials, industry and NIWA scientists. This meeting was to discuss which of the two most recent recreational harvest estimates for KAH1 ought to be included in advice to the Minister. After the Minister s approval the management proposals would be released for public consultation. Both John and Trish challenged the lower harvest estimate (800 tonne) and how it would be used. (The upper bound was 1865t.) If the 800t was an under-estimate of actual harvest the Minister may decide on a recreational allowance that was too low. Historically, MFish has used the recreational allowance as a benchmark when making an allowance for customary interests. Considering the significance of the recreational harvest estimate and possible flow-on effect to the customary allowance, it was important that the and its various groups were given the opportunity to discuss the information and develop a consensus position. A written statement from the was due to be given to the Working Group the following day. 9 April 2010 Hui Report July

51 Figure 4: Kahawai Quota Management Areas. April 2010 Hui Report July

52 Table 1: Current KAH allowances, total allowable commercial catch (TACCs), and total allowable catch (TACs) for each quota management area, in tonnes: Fishstock Recreational Customary Other TACC TAC allowance allowance mortality KAH KAH KAH KAH KAH KAH Kahawai harvest estimates The non-commercial allowances, both customary and recreational, can have a significant effect on what is available for the Minister to allocate to commercial interests. If low allowances are set aside for noncommercial interests then the Minister is likely to allocate more quota to commercial interests. Conversely, if the allowances are higher there is less of the total allowable catch (TAC) available to allocate to commercial interests. There has been much debate about the recent recreational harvest estimate of 530 tonnes (t) in KAH1, based on an over-flight count of boats and ramp surveys. This 530t is approximately one quarter of what the earlier harvest surveys had estimated and around one third of the current recreational allowance of 1680t. MFish proposed using one of two recreational harvest estimates, either 800t or 1865t. The Working Group was asked to decide which of these two estimates had the strongest scientific rationale to support its use, and importantly, what was defensible by the Minister if there was a challenge. Historical kahawai catch John described the historical commercial kahawai catch. Intensive purse seine fishing for kahawai started in the mid-1970s. Catch peaked in the late 1980s and tailed off as controls were imposed. Catch levels remained high after the introduction of the quota management system in 1986 because kahawai (and kingfish) were left out of the QMS. As quota and catch limits were applied to snapper, tarakihi and other species fishers began targeting kahawai and kingfish because there was minimal cost involved. After intense lobbying by recreational interests the Minister imposed purse seine catch controls in the early 1990s. These controls were suspended after kahawai entered the QMS in Around half the total commercial catch of kahawai is taken from KAH1. And KAH1 is the only area that has a stock assessment. KAH1 recreational kahawai catch rates have not improved much since the early 1990s and this suggests the fishery has not recovered well from the early, intensive exploitation. Kahawai 1 modelling exercise Originally MFish and the Working Group were going to use the 530t estimate in their stock assessment model for KAH1. But, from a non-commercial perspective, the 530t estimate was not a good estimate of the long-term average of recreational catch in that fishery. The MFish Working Group accepted John s recommendation that the model should use a lower bound of 800t and an upper bound of 1865t with the annual catch likely to vary between these. MFish now want agreement to choose one of these estimates to present as the most likely model to the Minister. April 2010 Hui Report July

53 Actual catch is both likely to be somewhere in between these estimates, and vary from year to year. But, because there is no data to support an estimate in between these figures MFish has presented the choices as either 800t or 1865t. After a presentation from the scientist that managed the aerial over flight survey, the majority decision from the Northern Inshore Working Group supported using the 800t estimate in the model and advice to the Minister. John described the advantages and disadvantages associated with using either of the estimates. The quandary is that a higher historical non-commercial catch results in estimates of a more productive stock, able to support a higher total allowable catch. On the other hand, using the smaller harvest estimate would result in a more conservative total allowable catch. Hui Discussion It was interesting to note the catch history of kahawai. Catch by area was not described well in MFish s early records. It was notable that there was at least 10,000t of kahawai taken over five years from a 50-mile stretch along the Kaikoura coast. Without pre-empting the pending MFish management proposals for Kahawai 1 (KAH1), between East and North Cape, it would be unwise for the Ministry to propose a drastic reduction of the 495 tonne customary allowance even though there were very few, if any, customary permits issued for kahawai. As discussed during the June 2009 hui, historically the Minister of Fisheries has set the customary allowances for many fish stocks well above what the actual catch has been, in recognition of Treaty obligations 10. Given the 2009 Supreme Court s ruling on kahawai and the stance taken by Sanfords and Sealords during the earlier High Court proceedings, there is a possibility this management approach will be challenged by commercial interests. In the High Court the commercial parties claimed a share of the excessive customary allowance because it was not being fully caught. But there is a gulf of difference between commercial catch and non-commercial interests, which are broader than just catch. These interests include environmental, social and cultural values. Non-commercial catch varies with abundance. If there are lots of fish available more will be caught. Conversely, if the fishery is depleted then non-commercial fishers will catch less. If there are less fish available commercial fishers have the ability and resources to increase fishing effort to maintain their annual catch levels. It will be very controversial if the Minister, as a result of this review, reduces the customary and recreational allowances and increases the commercial catch limits for kahawai. Higher commercial limits means more kahawai will taken out of the water as low value product. This was contrary to the high value placed on kahawai by non-commercial interests, which need more fish in the water, to sustain current and future generations. Reduced allowances may require individual daily bag limit cuts, to ensure the overall allowance is not exceeded. During the earlier kahawai review NIWA advised that to achieve a 25 percent reduction in recreational catch bag limits would need to be reduced from 20 per person (mixed bag) to around six. Further study by John 10 page 59. April 2010 Hui Report July

54 Holdsworth revealed that kahawai bag limits in KAH1 (North to East Cape) would need to be reduced to three or four. A case study would help to understand what the implications were if MFish used the 800 tonne estimate in advice to the Minister. John and Trish used the census information to determine how many people had access to KAH1 and then divided that number by the MFish participation rate of 20 percent. The result was a conservative estimate of 500,000 fishers in KAH 1. It was nonsense to suggest that these half a million fishermen were only taking one kahawai each per annum. MFish and other interests were not keen to estimate the participation rate in fishing and would not accept the figures put forward by John and Trish. One reason is that many fishers of European descent target other species, such as snapper and gurnard, and therefore did not land as many kahawai as Maori or other ethnic groups. Whatever estimate is used, in the interests of sustainability the Minister has to be reasonable and allow for the annual catch that will be taken as part of the overall non-commercial interests. The main concern is how the estimate will be used in management terms. Historically MFish has used catch history and the minimum estimate as a basis for recreational allowances. This approach is objectionable because it does not allow for interests, merely for estimated catch. MFish has asked for scientific reasoning as to what estimate was acceptable. John and Trish advised the Working Group that a statement would be forwarded to MFish after the hui. While non-commercial representatives have historically argued for the largest allowance for non-commercial fishers there are some benefits in having a more conservative estimate of how productive the fishery is. After about an hour of discussion representatives of Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua, other northern iwi and hapu, Greenpeace, ECO, option4, Te Korowai (Kaikoura), and NZ Sport Fishing reached a consensus. The appreciated John s effort and expertise in representing non-commercial interests in the fisheries science and management processes. John would advise MFish that neither the 800t nor 1865t was acceptable as the single estimate of historical amateur catch in Kahawai 1. There were also concerns about how these estimates would be used in management. ** On the second day of the hui John Holdsworth sent the following memo to the Ministry of Fisheries, on behalf of the Recreational kahawai harvest estimate for KAH1 A detailed presentation and discussion of available data on recreational harvest estimates for kahawai occurred at the 14th meeting of the at the Oturei marae, Dargaville on 22 April The consensus of those present was that neither 800 t nor 1865 t should be used as the single estimate of historic recreational harvest in KAH1. While we appreciate that MFish is looking to provide a single coherent line of advice to the Minister, we are concerned that that the selection of a single base case for the kahawai stock assessment locks in a set of assumptions and management outcomes. We note the general conclusions in the note of meeting of the Northern Inshore Working Group March 2008 which requested that MFish Science ensure that users of the results are aware that the range of true April 2010 Hui Report July

55 uncertainty could be much larger than that represented in the four sates of nature considered. The selection of a single model run strips away most of the underlying uncertainty in the modelling approach used. Specific concerns The assumption of a single constant recreational harvest estimate for the last 35 years as a model input is clearly not true. Non-commercial harvest varies with abundance. It appears that was a particularly poor year for kahawai harvest. The implications for other QMAs were not discussed. There is a concern that one years aerial over flight estimates of SNA and KAH catch could be used as a benchmark for adjusting harvest estimates in other QMAs. While surveys based on direct observation (boat counts and ramp interviews) tend to be intuitively more precise, in examples where information is less that perfect, they tend to underestimate recreational harvest (KIN1, SNA in outer Marlborough Sounds, SNA8). The so-called discussion document on harvest estimates in KAH1 turned up unannounced on the MFish working group web site the afternoon before the meeting. There was no time to inform the groups we represent of the rationale for selecting a harvest estimate and potential implications prior to the meeting. There is no MFish fisheries management forum where kahawai management objectives can be discussed. MFish still refuse to tell us what management options are being considered. The members of the are committed to good process and a better understanding of objectives based fisheries management. We are not convinced yet that this is being delivered. For the John Holdsworth 23 April April 2010 Hui Report July

56 Marine Protection and Diversity in Representation Karli Thomas, Greenpeace New Zealand Aotearoa Karli has been an active member of Greenpeace for several years. Karli is based in Auckland, but often travels overseas as part of Greenpeace campaigns. She was originally scheduled to talk with the hui as part of a panel discussing alternative marine protection measures. Due to timetable changes Karli was keen to talk about various marine protection programmes and give an outsider s perspective on representation of the amateur fishing sector interests. Greenpeace International In terms of marine reserves Greenpeace has a science unit at the University of Exeter, in Devon UK, three ocean-going ships and many advocates around the globe. These resources enable Greenpeace to operate at an international level. People in New Zealand may not always appreciate the effort or notice the impacts of these international activities. Greenpeace has focused on marine reserves in international waters, the last frontier of ocean conservation. On the high seas the only parts that are fully protected are a few postage-stamp size areas in the Southern Ocean. There is a triangular area in the Mediterranean Sea, under the protection of a regional treaty, which has little effect. An example of where Greenpeace s activities have an impact on New Zealand fisheries is in the Pacific Ocean. There are four pockets of international waters that are bordered by the 200 nautical mile limit of four Pacific countries. Those areas are key tuna grounds and migratory zones for pelagic fish, but most importantly they are hot spots of illegal fishing. So when Greenpeace are calling for selected oceanic areas to be closed, they are doing it for conservation, monitoring, surveillance and enforcement reasons. Greenpeace has patrolled these areas four times recently. Last year Karli was aboard Greenpeace s ship when they discovered a Japanese longliner stealing fish out of the Cook Island s northern waters. A fleet of three ships was caught illegally fishing. As a result, both the Cook Islands and Tokelau governments were able to prosecute and settle these illegalities. In a New Zealand context, these Pacific areas are important yellow fin tuna grounds. Yellow fin tuna in Region 3 of the Pacific are overfished, yet this is an important breeding area. It was notable that not one tuna was caught last year during a long-standing Tuna fishing tournament down the East Coast. The impact of activity in the Pacific has an effect on New Zealand tuna stocks. Karli has also worked on marine reserves in New Zealand and was available to discuss that in more detail with anyone that wanted more information. Recreational representation Karli s initial, formal involvement with recreational fishing organisations occurred in 2002 when she was invited to talk about marine reserves at the New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council s Conference held in New Plymouth. It was apparent back then that it was easy for commercial interests to engineer a conversation about marine reserves and then leave the environmental and recreational fishing sector representatives to battle out the arguments between them. In Karli s view more recent developments such as the and the 2030 Alliance initiative have enabled more robust discussions between the non-commercial interest groups, both environmental and fisheries. April 2010 Hui Report July

57 An important factor for all the representative groups was to maximise their strengths. To achieve that a thorough analysis was required to determine what resources were available, who is involved, their experience and how that collectively contributes to what the non-commercial interests want to achieve. In many ways representation amongst the amateur fishing sector was not that different to the environmental sector. There were many groups advocating various issues. Given the recent discussion to develop a single body to represent recreational fishing interests it was helpful to determine what the objective is. If an external party is trying to get the better of the non-commercial sector then they will attempt to either marginalise one or more of the various parties, or use the divide and conquer technique. If people or groups are being marginalised, kept away from influencing policy or other matters, then there was value in retaining the diverse groups. If parties were being divided and conquered then the parties were probably too diverse and there was a need to find some common ground between the groups. Compared to overseas, the various environmental groups operating in New Zealand work well together. They do not always agree, but there was value in having people focused on different issues. Greenpeace works with Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand (ECO), both Clive in Thames and their Wellington-based people, WWF and Forest & Bird. It would be helpful for the various recreational groups to determine what issues are important, who they represent and what role they fill in the overall scheme. As with the environmental sector, each group has a different role and varying relationships with industry and government representatives. Often the environmental group s representatives will talk together before submitting on an issue to ensure that they understand who is doing what, that they do not unwittingly counteract each others effort, or decide who will take the lead role in a specific issue. If a niche is being filled, they respect that effort and back off if necessary, to avoid stepping on each others toes. Hui Discussion Prior to the hui Karli had not heard that three million dollars was being offered as bait to successfully create a one-stop shop for recreational fishing representation. If that was true, then that could be a sign the opposition is trying to marginalise the sector and only address issues with one group so they can claim they have consulted with the entire sector. Likewise, if groups are being pitted against each other then recreational groups need to determine if they are adequately working together. For example, before the national representatives of the environmental sector have their quarterly meetings with MFish, they meet to share information, determine if all the issues are being covered and who is doing what, to ensure they maximise their strengths and resources. One of the realities is that tangata whenua have no authority, or ability, to give away their mandate to anyone purporting to represent their non-commercial recreational fishing interests. From an outsider s perspective, it would seem that the various recreational representative groups have more common ground than differences. So it was possibly a matter of the groups getting together to determine April 2010 Hui Report July

58 how they can work collectively on those issues that were agreed, and deal with other issues later. This framework had worked well during the formation of the Alliance 11 in regards to the Fisheries 2030 project. It would be helpful if the various recreational organisations did a stock-take analysis to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each group, who they represented and what issues they are best to address. From an observer s view, in terms of the and the way it had operated throughout the hui, it seemed that the forum was working very well together, formulating policy, and continually self-assessing its strengths and weaknesses, even if those particular terms were not being used. Two examples were how the Accord had already debated and decided on both Te Puna Mataitai and the aquaculture policy. There will always be differences between the groups, but this does not mean that they cannot work together or that one group is compromised by working with another group that has a different focus. If an issue was of sufficient importance then everyone s effort needs to be focused on the issue, not the people or group involved April 2010 Hui Report July

59 April 2010 Hui Report July

60 Hiwi the Kiwi Goes Fishing Project - Update Evan MacKay, Vice President, NZ Sport Fishing Council Evan MacKay has been a member of the NZ Sport Fishing, previously the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council, for around 25 years. Evan lives in Tokerau Beach, Karikari Peninsula. Around five years ago Evan began investigating ideas to get more children involved in fishing. He met with Mark and Chris de Lacy and now NZ Sport Fishing have agreed to work together on the Hiwi the Kiwi Goes Fishing project. Hiwi the Kiwi Goes Fishing is being presented by Mark, aka The Minstrel to hundreds of primary schools around the country. Evan has been liaising with the schools and NZ Sport Fishing clubs in the regions to encourage participation. The programme is designed to inspire children to look after the coastline and the fresh waterways, promote water safety and fish abundance so there is enough kaimoana [seafood] for their mokopuna [descendants]. Since July 2009 the Hiwi the Kiwi Goes Fishing show has been presented to around 140 schools. It has been a great success and Evan offered several supportive testimonials from schools. Around $50,000 was raised to initiate the project. School material and a CD have been produced, in addition to brochures, stickers and a new website More recently a book and CD have been developed and distributed for sale in bookshops. Firmans Marine from Napier and several other tackle industry firms have sponsored a boat and fishing package as a prize for a nationwide raffle. The Hiwi the Kiwi Goes Fishing programme was due to be a headline feature at the upcoming Hutchwilco Boat Show in Auckland, in May. Funding has been received from a number of sources, including the industry sponsors, the Guardians of the Sea Charitable Trust Nga Kaitiaki mo Tangaroa, NZ Sport Fishing and Black Magic Tackle. By the end of the three-year project Hiwi the Kiwi Goes Fishing will have been presented to at least 400 schools throughout the country. Fishing for the Future was the main focus of the programme. Evan then played a DVD of The Minstrel presenting the show to a Rotorua school. The children were captivated. Evan issued a challenge to the Accord s participants. To date the project has not received any formal support from iwi, but acknowledged the positive feedback from earlier hui. Evan looked forward to the day when iwi were featured in the Hiwi the Kiwi promotional material as being a sponsor or supporter. Evan confirmed The Minstrel was fully booked but he was available to meet with Iwi Runanga to discuss possible support for the project, which promotes sustaining kaimoana food from the sea. April 2010 Hui Report July

61 Lady Chapman. Oturei Marae, Kaipara. April April 2010 Hui Report July

62 Friday 23 rd April 2010 Local Tikanga and Perspectives Lady Chapman, Naumai Lady Chapman was disappointed to have missed most of the earlier korero [discussion] because she had been involved in preparing the kai [food] for the hui. She was also saddened that they were not able to host the Accord at Naumai Marae, but due to a tangi this hui moved to Oturei. Local tikanga [practice] dictated that a hui would make way for a tangi, out of respect to the person who had passed away and their whanau. After amusing everyone with several stories Lady went on to describe her early memories of families living beside the Wairoa River and being sustained by the kaimoana [seafood] available. Lady s large family relied on the kaimoana, as did most of the locals. She recalled one family had 22 children, but many had between 10 and 15. Mullet, flounder and eel were prolific when she was a youngster. These were now less abundant and the locals were very concerned about their ability to teach their mokopuna [grandchildren] how to sustain the land. There were serious concerns about the amount of run-off from the land that was entering the waterways and upsetting the local ecology. There were consequences for the health and well-being of the harbour if chemicals were applied to the land. Frogs and tadpoles had virtually disappeared from the streams so it was no surprise there was an increase in mosquito numbers. It was hugely disturbing to witness several years ago the aerial bombardment to counter the Ross River virus in the Kaipara. If there were enough frogs around they could regulate the numbers of flying insects without the need for chemicals. Amongst all the laughter and talking throughout the hui it was notable that Judah s voice was not being heard. Although they had had their differences, the locals had huge respect for Judah and his ability to bring people together for the good of everyone. It was up to people at the grassroots to ensure the wellness of the land and waterways. Lady was pleased the was fighting to maintain healthy fish numbers and encouraged everyone to continue that work. MFish Accord Relationship Hui discussion It was notable that once again the Ministry of Fisheries had arrived to present broad, non-specific policy statements and then left as quickly as possible. Despite earlier assurances about supporting the Hokianga Accord the Ministry had failed to provide meaningful support and koha for the hui. This was disappointing for the Accord and Oturei Marae. But MFish s behaviour was consistent with previous hui. It was everyone s right to know how MFish are applying the Fisheries Act. If the Ministry is having problems in giving effect to certain parts of the Act, they ought to provide adequate information and then ask people who care, to determine the best way to achieve the optimum outcome. For example, if sitting a driver s licence all the material is provided, people are expected to learn the basics and then be tested for the knowledge and skill. In contrast, MFish seem to be hiding behind the legislation, presenting policies that can only loosely relate to the legislation and then expect people to accept their interpretation of the law. This was not good enough. April 2010 Hui Report July

63 It was incumbent on the to be honest enough and point out to MFish where they are going wrong. There was enough experience amongst the forum s participants to try and offer direction to the Ministry so that their actions are of more benefit to the wider community. There was an opportunity to write to the Ministry and point out the issues and offer to work with them to achieve better outcomes for everyone. Alternatively, given the ongoing sometime fractious nature of the relationship maybe it was time to write to the Minister directly. Concurrent with that would be having the Accord chairperson or Iwi leaders, Sonny Tau and Naida Glavish, to deal directly with the Minister, Phil Heatley. MFish could not plead ignorance of what the is trying to achieve. Ministry personnel have attended enough hui, received plenty of correspondence and have had their Pou Hononga and Pou Takawaenga working with iwi and hapu within Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua for some years now. MFish still seem to struggle with the inclusive approach that the Accord has taken in management terms. The model of iwi commercial and non-commercial, hapu, environmental and amateur fishing interests working together to achieve a common outcome was successful. It was disappointing MFish were not encouraging similar behaviour around the country. Having all interests in a region working collectively would make the Ministry s job much simpler in the medium to long-term. MFish seemed intent on developing Iwi Fisheries Plans because that is what they have agreed will occur and have set aside funding to achieve those plans. The was more interested in developing a plan that encompassed broader interests of the community as well as iwi and hapu aspirations. The various organisations within the had worked hard to find areas of common interest, a similar approach could be taken with the Ministry and Minister given that they have to work within the constraints of the bureaucracy. Whatever strategy was agreed it was important to include Ben Dalton in the mix. This was his first Hokianga Accord hui and he clearly stated that he is seeking to achieve the best outcome for Maori. This offer needed to be given more consideration, irrespective if an approach is made to either the Minister or Ministry. It was agreed that the relationship between the Accord and MFish needed to be re-evaluated because it had been dysfunctional from the start. In 2005 months of effort went into developing a Kaupapa Whakahaere (Memorandum of Understanding). MFish Deputy CEO Stan Crothers, Terry Lynch and other senior officials were involved in that initiative. That Kaupapa Whakahaere had lapsed and it was debatable whether the new people in MFish were familiar with the ins and outs of the Fisheries Act To achieve the best outcome from a re-evaluation of the relationship it was critical the Accord determines its own wants and needs before expecting MFish to deliver any more than they have over the past five years. Ideally key personnel from each organisation would meet as the Working Group, to thrash out a clear intention statement, a strategy to achieve that outcome and ways to positively engage with Ben, the Ministry and Minister. The More Fish in the Water II Strategy 12 delivered to the Minister last year during the Fisheries 2030 discussions describes the medium to long-term goals. Initially the Accord needs to decide on the immediate priorities: Desirable policies and outcomes; and The mechanics, from within the Fisheries Act, required to deliver those policies and outcomes April 2010 Hui Report July

64 These decisions can then be delivered at a meeting of the Minister, Ben Dalton and the Working Group. It needs to be clear that achieving these outcomes will ultimately reflect well on the Minister and his Ministry. Another approach is to simply fold the More Fish in the Water II Strategy into the MFish 2030 document. (Appendix Five). Given the broadness of the MFish statements in their final 2030 policy this can be achieved by fitting the Alliance strategy statements under each MFish heading. This way a single document is developed that encompasses both views. The already has its own policies and long-term vision, as described in the More Fish in the Water II Strategy. There are fundamental principles that the ought to stick by, with or without immediate support from the Ministry. The mechanics of how and when things occur requires Ministry willingness. The Minister on the other hand is responsible at a political level, so a short checklist of four or five issues needs to be developed and given to the Minister to deliver by the next election, in October/November Those issues did not necessarily need to be all 2030-focused, but it needs to be clear that these are the points that the Accord and its constituent organisations will use to measure the Minister s success. The priority list of desirable policies, outcomes and mechanics to achieve those things could form the basis of a combined Community Fisheries Plan as opposed to an Iwi Fisheries Plan. This could be a starter to discuss with Ben Dalton, as the person responsible for implementing the Treaty Strategy and Iwi Fisheries Plans. Kelvin Davis arrival Kelvin Davis [Ngati Manu] is a Labour Party List MP and Associate Spokesperson on Maori Affairs. Kelvin arrived during intense discussions on how the ought to proceed in its relationship with the Minister and Ministry of Fisheries. It was clarified that the mandated representatives of a variety of iwi, hapu, environmental and amateur fishing organisations regularly attended the hui. Some of those people had already left Oturei to attend other hui. People still at Oturei, or those who had recently left, included representatives from Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi, Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua, Te Runanga-a-Iwi O Ngati Kahu, Greenpeace, Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand (ECO), NZ Sport Fishing, option4, Guardians of the Sea Charitable Trust and Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura Kaikoura. Forest & Bird and Guardians of Hawke Bay Fisheries representatives had sent their apologies. A quick recap was given, for Kelvin s benefit, outlining the stalemate regarding Ministerial approval for Te Puna Mataitai and the effort made by the late Judah Heihei and his team of kaitiaki to achieve their aspirations for more abundant fisheries in the northern Bay of Islands. Kelvin apologised for arriving late and advised he had to leave early to attend a meeting in Whangarei. He was keen to stay informed of the Accord s progress and eager to attend future forum hui. Fishing was an integral part of Maori life and it was very important to maintain that legacy for our mokopuna [descendants]. April 2010 Hui Report July

65 The late Pita Walters with Hugh Nathan outside Oturei Marae, Kaipara. April April 2010 Hui Report July

66 Recent Fisheries Management Issues Trish Rea, analyst, option4 Trish Rea has attended all previous hui and has been part of the option4 team since Trish is based in Waitakere and regularly engages with MFish and other authorities on fisheries related issues. She co-ordinates the distribution of information, the development of submissions in response to management proposals and maintains the s records. Given the time available Trish would give a quick overview of the various management matters that had arisen since the previous hui and the responses given to MFish. Update - Draft North Island West Coast Finfish Fisheries Plan At the Waipapa hui in November 2007 both Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua agreed that Trish, Paul Haddon and Hally Toia would participate in the development of the Ministry-led North Island West Coast Finfish Fisheries Plan, on behalf of the. Ngati Kahu and Te Rarawa were also involved in the plan s development. Other participants included corporate and small-time commercial fishers, iwi and hapu, amateur fishers and environmental interests from the top of the South Island to North Cape. Trish withdrew from the process in 2008 due to other commitments. Acknowledgement was given to Vic Holloway, Abe Witana and Hally Toia for maintaining their effort to get the best outcome for Maori and non-commercial interests. Without that input the plan may have been much more focused on economic outcomes, to the detriment of non-commercial environmental and fishing interests. In October 2009 the, option4 and the Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association submitted jointly in response to the MFish Draft North Island West Coast Finfish Fisheries Plan. The sixpage submission 13 acknowledged the long-term goals and principles defined in the draft plan. It also noted that the draft plan did not address the key issues of reversing low abundance in important inshore fisheries. (Appendix Six). The submission emphasised the need to rebuild those fisheries. As noted earlier, MFish has recently advised the draft plan has been put into abeyance, and that it may or may not become a chapter in the National Finfish Fisheries Plan currently being developed by the Ministry. Update - Maunganui Bay Rahui Matu Clendon, Robert Willoughby and Helen Mountain Harte had earlier sent their apologies as they had important commitments in Te Rawhiti, Bay of Islands. However, they appreciated the support given by the Accord for the s186a rahui application and subsequent discussion in the Accord NZ Fishing News Update # In December 2009 the submitted in support of the proposed temporary closure in Maunganui Bay (Deep Water Cove), in the southern Bay of Islands 15. (Appendix Seven). The Accord advised MFish of their tautoko [support] for Ngati Kuta and Patukeha ki Te Rawhiti in their rahui application made under section 186A of the Fisheries Act A week later the Bay of Islands Swordfish Club submitted in support of the rahui application 16. This was an encouraging development and the Accord acknowledged Jerry Garret for his assistance in gaining the Club s approval. Sadly Jerry was not well enough to be at this hui, but his input and humour had added value to previous hui discussions April 2010 Hui Report July

67 The supportive submission by the Swordfish Club was a turning-point document from an entity that traditionally would have staunchly opposed such an initiative by Maori interests. This support was a demonstration of the effectiveness of the, in increasing public awareness of the Kaitiaki obligations that tangata whenua have, to nurture the marine environment and fisheries. Trish gave a copy of the Accord s submission to Kelvin Davis so he could follow-up the application and subsequent decision by the Minister of Fisheries, when he was next in Wellington. Update - Guardians of Hawke Bay Fisheries Representatives from the Guardians of Hawke Bay Fisheries forum have been to several hui. Due to prior commitments Wayne Bicknell, Richard Burch, Colin Murray and Jonathan Dick were not available to attend this hui, so their chairman, Jonathan, sent through the following update: Tena koutou Tena koutou, ko koutou ma kua hinga. Moe mai koutou ki te taha o te Matua e runga rawa. Huri noa ki a tatou, nga hunga ora. Tena tatou koutou. The purpose of this report is to give the an update on the activities of the Guardians of Hawke Bay Fisheries - GHBF. Please accept our apologies for not being able to attend the April Hokianga Accord. We greatly appreciate the support and manaakitanga that is extended from the to the GHBF. It has been a busy time for GHBF. We have had a great response to our proposed actions for The section 186A temporary fishing closure for an area adjacent the Port of Napier was lodged with the Ministry of Fisheries in March this year. While there are many issues before us that require our attention and vigilance the GHBF now need to take a few more steps up. Our immediate challenge is to move into a greater advocacy role for tatou mokopuna. Here s a brief roundup on the work of the various representatives that sit at the GHBF table. Commercial Concerns around the levels of catch in Area 2. Considerable fishing effort north of Gisborne, inshore only. One of the trial T90 nets are being modified by the net maker in Nelson and the cod end is being tested with double twine. Customary Jenny Mauger resigned from GHBF, which has left a big gap. GHBF is still working on building support from the numerous representative groups in the district. Ranui Toatoa co-signed the s186a application on behalf of Mana Ahuriri. Recreational Some big fish being caught but people recording overall reduced levels of catch. Letter received from Brian Firman raising concerns over the reduced catch landings. Ongoing ramp surveys. Hiwi the Kiwi programme currently being rolled out in Hawke Bay schools. Environmental Monitoring of discharge resource consents into the Hawke Bay. Political Regular communication with the local elected Member of Parliament. Limited contact with Napier-based Ministry officials. No reira, ka haere te mihi ki a koutou. Kia kaha, kia toa - give it heaps! Na Jonathan Dick Chairman GHBF April 2010 Hui Report July

68 Additional comment Local MP Chris Tremain was the founding chairman of this Hawke Bay Guardians forum. Since his election to Parliament Chris has stood down from this role. His involvement provided much-needed enthusiasm for the multi-sector forum to get underway. Following the hui both the and Te Hiku O Te Ika, far north forum, sent letters of support to Richard Burch endorsing the T90 trawl net trials occurring in the Hawke Bay. (Refer Appendices 8 & 9) Update - Regional recreational fisheries forums Paul Batten from Mangawhai was due to give the hui an update on the proposed reforms of the regional recreational fisheries forums, but had sent his apologies. MFish were planning to rearrange the forums to align with the fisheries management areas. Paul was a member of the current Northland forum, which will be merging with the Hauraki/Bay of Plenty based forum. Several others at the hui were part of the various forums. Trish Rea was chairperson for the west coast forum, covering Mokau to North Cape. This forum was due to be split into Areas 8 and 9. Area 9 forum will cover the interests from Tirua Point, south of Kawhia, to North Cape. Hopefully the new Area 9 forum will include a person from the Hokianga, or far north region. MFish would be managing future forums and appointing the new members. Preference will be given to current forum members and people with a mandate from a club or organisation. These forums will not replace formal consultation however, MFish are expecting to discuss issues with the forums prior to any public consultation process. Paul has been to most of the previous hui and provided updates on the overall forum activities, and the Northland forum in particular. He wanted several points noted, as follows: The will be the biggest, most reinforced ear recreational fishers will have to help sort out our fisheries. Presently the northern forum has 12 members, but soon we will be amalgamating with the Hauraki/Bay of Plenty forum to create a single entity for Area 1. MFish advise this forum will have 8 to 10 members. This represents a huge depletion of localised input, and this reduced level of input is of great concern. I am concerned about who will be included in the new forum if we, as members of the, are not included. I am also concerned about what input will be given and the future direction of the forum. Will it align with our common goal of more fish in the water for the next generation? Also the NZ Sport Fishing Council is planning to send a letter to the Ministry acknowledging the current forum representatives from NZ Sport Fishing, option4 and the. The NZ Sport Fishing Council will be endorsing the re-appointment of these representatives. Regards and great discussions. Paul Batten NZ Sport Fishing Zone II management representative. April 2010 Hui Report July

69 Hui discussion It was a major concern that sustenance fishers seemed to be left out of the current MFish conversation and new forums. They are the people that needed the strongest representation because the fish they harvested was food for the whanau, yet they had the least voice. Conceivably MFish will appoint one representative from each of the regional forums to participate in a national forum. By the time this representation reaches Wellington the voice and interests of sustenance fishers will be diluted. It was important for the s participants to maintain a presence at these regional forums, both iwi and recreational, to ensure the sustenance fishers interests are protected. MFish were adamant that customary interests were not excluded from the regional recreational forums. However, they were equally adamant that iwi forums were only for customary issues. Update Seaweek 2010 The New Zealand Association for Environmental Education (NZAEE) hosts an annual, national celebration of the sea called Seaweek. The NZAEE Northland representative, Samara Nicholas from Whananaki, gave a presentation about marine protection to the last Accord hui. Seaweek is usually held during the first or second week of March each year. This is the only nationwide event dedicated to help people learn from the sea and develop a better understanding of what sustainability might mean in the marine world. Seaweek 2010 occurred from March 6 th to 14 th and the theme was fish for the future. Proposed theme for next year s event is culture/history and traditions, including Maori, other ethnic groups and European. option4 and the have been invited to organise a community event that fits with the Seaweek theme and have that event included as part of the 2011 programme. More details are online at Sioux Campbell, from Chameleon Public Relations, is the national co-coordinator available at chameleon.1@xtra.co.nz. Update Over arching recreational representative body As mentioned by Sonny Tau earlier in the hui, there was a meeting on March 26 th at Bucklands Beach Yacht Club to discuss creating an over-arching body to represent all amateur fishing interests. The meeting was organised by three people from the South Island who do not understand the dynamics of the inclusive approach the takes to presenting a united voice. Prior to the Bucklands Beach meeting the organisers confirmed both Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua were not invited to the meeting, on the basis that they were not national organisations. Some of the people at the hui had been privy to that conversation. However, it was the organiser s prerogative to invite who they wished. On the basis that Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua were excluded from the meeting both option4 and the NZ Sport Fishing Council declined to attend and participate in the hui. Both Trish Rea and Jason Foord attended the meeting on behalf of Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ). Trish was an observer and worked with Jason and Kim Walshe to produce a report for the Accord and various iwi, hapu and non-commercial environmental and fishing interest groups. The report of that meeting is online at April 2010 Hui Report July

70 After the March meeting it was not clear if the organisers were going to take their proposal to the Minister to seek his support for the creation of an over-arching body to represent all recreational fishing interests. ** Following the hui it was confirmed that the proposal had been presented to the Minister, Phil Heatley. Any further developments are awaited with interest and the would be kept informed of progress. Update Public Awareness The continues to produce monthly updates for the New Zealand Fishing News magazine. So far there have been 31 Updates in this publication, several feature articles in NZFN and other publications and online material at NZ Fishing News has the largest readership of any fishing publication in the country so 31 Updates represents almost three years of news made available to the wider public. A copy of those Updates was available at the hui and online at A brochure has also been produced. It was originally published for the Ngapuhitanga Festival in Since then it has been used on a number of occasions as a simple explanation of who the is, what the forum aims to achieve and its activities. Hard copies of the brochure are available from Trish, Shelley Naera at Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi or online, under Brochure heading, at April 2010 Hui Report July

71 Seasonal Fishing Hui discussion There was a brief discussion about the value of not fishing during spawning season. However there was insufficient time to discuss all aspects of the issue and it would be worthwhile waiting to have that discussion when more of our fisheries experts were available to contribute to the conversation. From a commercial perspective a major difficulty for seasonal fishing is that most of the quota is held by larger companies or corporates. Individual fishers hold only around six percent of total quota, yet these are the people who would have the ability to manage their own affairs and determine when and where they fish. Also, to be effective any seasonal fishing restriction would need to be supported by the community. As mentioned earlier in the hui, the climate patterns are changing, and the start and end times for spawning for various species can no longer be reliably predicted. There is a variety of factors that influence spawning times and these can vary from year to year and between months during the same year. So it was not just a matter of specifying a start and end date to the non-fishing period. Any further discussion will require good understanding of all the issues. Seasonal fishing was a hot topic at many hui and the Accord needs to consider it being an agenda item at a future hui. Various people could be invited to contribute to that discussion before an agreed position can be reached. April 2010 Hui Report July

72 Hui Evaluation At the conclusion of each hui all participants are given the chance to make a closing statement or provide their feedback on their experience of the hui. The evaluation session provides a valuable opportunity to hear from people who were not presenters or the main contributors to the two-day hui. It has been an interesting year since the last hui. A positive is the strengthening relationship that has developed between the environmental organisations, the Accord, its various fishing entities and other iwi and hapu. The need to respond to the Fisheries 2030 proposals had been the catalyst of this more intense relationship and that has been an encouraging outcome. The hui had reinvigorated interest in fisheries and land management issues. The depth of knowledge and willingness to share that information amongst the Accord participants was greatly appreciated. option4 was acknowledged for its effort to keep a range of people informed about a variety of issues. It was ground-breaking to consider developing a community based Fisheries Plan as opposed to having Maori developing Iwi Fisheries Plans and Pakeha working on a separate Fisheries Plan for the same fish. This hui had provided the opportunity for hapu to spend quality time with their Ngapuhi leaders and to assess who their elders were spending time with at these hui. It was encouraging to hear so much emphasis placed on enhancing the quality of the waterways through good land management practices. A sample meeting observer s evaluation form was offered to the hui for future use. It had proven to be a valuable tool in ensuring people were getting value, and learning, from attending various hui. The Accord was welcome to use the evaluation form as is or amend as required. This hui had exceeded expectations. It was an eye-opener to witness the acceptance of different people, their views and backgrounds. This was a good basis for the to achieve its lofty goals in the future. It was a pleasure to be part of the hui. As a hui first-timer it had been very enlightening to witness the marae protocol, how people interacted so easily with each other and shared their knowledge. This generosity and experience was greatly appreciated. The warm hospitality extended to the Accord newcomers was most welcome. There was so much to learn during the two days and that was a reflection of the breadth of the discussions. It was important to maintain peoples right to go fishing and catch fish to put on the table. This was a tradition that our children and grandchildren ought to enjoy. It was important to both keep the engine room effort going to achieve the Accord s goals and seek to use images that strike at the heart of ordinary New Zealanders to get their support. The image used during the hui of the boy holding the fish speaks volumes. The Accord needs to find and maximise opportunities to increase public awareness of these fisheries issues. A community Fisheries Plan has merit when compared to separate Iwi and non-maori Fisheries Plans. A Fisheries Plan needs to provide the mechanisms to combat illegal fishing. In some areas illegal fishers harvested more than the legitimate commercial take. This activity had to stop. A hearty thank you to Oturei Marae, its elders, the people providing the kai and to all those who participated in the hui. The was a good vehicle to achieve more fish in the water. Inspirational, aspirational and battery-charging were all terms that could describe this two-day hui. Local management had to be the ultimate goal and the community Fisheries Plan seemed like the ideal way to express how that would be achieved. April 2010 Hui Report July

73 hui were always an uplifting experience. The kotahitanga [unity] that had developed amongst the forum s participants was very valuable. It was a model worth sharing with the rest of the country. More discussion needs to occur on the inputs into aquaculture, finfish farming in particular. Given the material presented it did not seem that finfish farming was a viable operation. More investigation was recommended before the Accord makes any public statements on the issue. A challenge for the was to distil its message down to small, manageable sound-bites that the wider public can relate to. The difficulty is that most of the issues are so esoteric, hard to understand, that unless they are translated into easy language few people will engage in the debate. Declines in the fisheries have generally been so gradual or unseen because they occur underwater. Unless people actually go fishing they may not even be aware there is a serious issue with the fisheries. Many people rely on the government and Ministry to deliver good fisheries management, but they and all of us, have been let down. The Accord needs to devise a way to talk to people in simple terms and explain what is happening to our fisheries. It was important to build a working relationship with Ben Dalton because he seems committed to gaining the best outcomes for Maori. The needs to strengthen its relationship with other iwi forums. It would be a relatively simple matter to have someone from the Accord attend Te Hiku O Te Ika forum hui in the far north. Coverage would then be extended from Tamaki Makaurau [Auckland] to Cape Reinga and across to the east coast. Victor Holloway advised this would be his last hui. He had resigned as Environmental Resource Manager for Te Runanga-a-Iwi O Ngati Kahu and was retiring to Australia. It was sad to see Vic leave, but everyone wished him well for the future and he was welcome to attend future hui if he returned to Aotearoa. Everyone at the hui appreciated the manaaki provided by Ngati Whatua and Oturei Marae. The warmth and hospitality shown towards the Accord s participants would be remembered and treasured. It was also timely to recognise how fortunate the Accord was to enjoy the companionship and share the collective experience of all the contributors. These relationships had contributed to building a solid foundation that everyone could benefit from. Having such a robust group meeting together to share ideas was an incentive for people to return to hui. It was encouraging to see more young people at the hui, given that a few of the older people were stepping away or about to move on. As a first-timer to the hui it was an interesting experience to witness the challenges, responses and the creativity that results from the discussions. The manaakitanga [mutual respect] extended to find the common ground was encouraging. Local management for local abundance and talking with our neighbours, at every level, were the major points gathered from the discussions. It was appropriate to dedicate this hui to Judah Heihei who recently passed away. He was the co-chairman and attended every hui, even when he was not well. Judah was committed to making sure the succeeded in its endeavours to achieve more fish in the water. April 2010 Hui Report July

74 Judah s humour carried the Accord discussions through some tough encounters and that was a gift he gave to everyone at those hui. It was an honour for Ngati Whatua and Oturei Marae to host friends from Australia, Te Hiku [far north], Bay of Islands, Wellington, Kaikoura and everywhere in between. Warm greetings were extended so people would return to the Kaipara. Joe Bristowe closed the hui with a karakia [prayer] and wished everyone a safe journey home. Himene How Great Thou Art Whakaria mai Tou ripeka ki a au Tiaho mai Ra roto i te po Hei kona au Titiro atu ai Ora mate Hei a au koe noho ai. April 2010 Hui Report July

75 April 2010 Hui Report July

76 Appendix One Fisheries 2030 Process Summary Summary of final MFish Fisheries 2030 proposals for the non-commercial environmental and fishing interest Alliance. By Trish Rea 26 September 2009 Executive summary In mid to late 2008 the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) worked with fishing interest groups to develop a shared vision for fisheries to be achieved by the year Following the change of government, the advent of the economic downturn and a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Fisheries 2030 Vision, result areas and action plan. Unlocking the potential of the New Zealand fisheries sector (November 2008) the Ministry released the report in February 2009 as a draft proposal document [Fisheries 2030, 2030]. MFish then engaged with commercial, customary and amateur fishers to seek their views on the draft. Two multi sector meetings were held in Wellington in May In response to concerns about the Ministry s focus on economic outcomes at the expense of social, economic and cultural well-being, an alliance was formed between environmental and non-commercial fishing interests to develop a collective response (the Alliance). Several submissions were made to MFish, the Minister of Fisheries (the Minister) and the Primary Production Select Committee. In September 2009 the final Fisheries 2030 document was released along with the Minister s advice to the Cabinet Economic Growth and Infrastructure Committee (Cabinet Paper, CP). The 2030 initiative has changed from developing a long-term vision and action plan that is broadly supported by all stakeholders, to a strategic direction and goal as developed by the Ministry. A comparison of the draft proposals and final 2030 document has been completed. There are minor changes to the original action points identified in the draft proposal, with some change in the area of delivering on the Crown s obligations to Maori. The draft s original reference to developing alternatives to managing at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) has been deleted and replaced with the harvest strategy standards, which all reference back to BMSY. Aspirations for rebuilding depleted fisheries have been negated with these changes. Feedback from the Alliance has been largely ignored. Substantial management and sector reforms are indicated in the Cabinet Paper. Implications of these reforms and legislative changes have not been fully considered, partly due to the lack of specific information provided. There is enough to suggest that there will be little public consultation, further effort to engage with sector groups, build the representative capacity of the groups and ultimately make them responsible for their share of the fishery. MFish is due to report to the Minister on progress by June Clearly the objective is to achieve implementation of the earlier MFish proposals in Shared Fisheries. Ongoing references to commercial fisheries, customary fisheries and amateur fisheries reinforce the Ministry s intention to achieve allocation amongst the interest groups and reduce the public s right to fish within their allocation. Allocation would also strengthen quota rights by entitling the owner to a perpetual share of the total allowable catch (TAC), as opposed to the current right to a percentage of the total allowable commercial catch (TACC). Privatisation of New Zealand s fisheries would then be complete. April 2010 Hui Report July

77 Goal a. MFish - New Zealanders maximising benefits from the use of fisheries within environmental limits. b. Non-commercial Alliance vision Healthy and abundant oceans with more fish in the water, providing all New Zealanders with access to kai moana and our future generations with the opportunity to enjoy a healthy ocean and sustainable fisheries. 2. Description of process PwC Draft proposals Non-commercial Alliance Fisheries 2030 final feedback Vision Vision Goal Three result areas Five governance conditions Fifteen objectives Goal Fifteen objectives 46 action points (achieve 5 years +) Six long-term actions Three urgent actions Two outcomes use and environment 45 strategic action points Short-term action plan MFish Fisheries Objectives and action points are divided between the Use Outcome, the Environment Outcome and Governance Conditions as follows: a. Use Objective one to four, action points 1.1 to 4.4, [2030, p8] b. Environment Objective five to eight, action points 5.1 to 8.2, [2030, p9] c. Governance conditions Objective nine to 15, action points 9.1 to 15.2, [2030, p10] 4. There are eight values and 13 principles outlined in the document [2030, p11]. These values and principles apply to all actions and decisions made to achieve the goal. 5. MFish acknowledge Fisheries 2030 is a start. Monitoring and evaluation will be an ongoing process. MFish expect adjustments to be made as objectives are achieved. MFish advise tangata whenua and stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide input to the Ministry s strategic planning processes. [2030, p13]. 6. There are no specifics as to how progress will be monitored, what the performance indicators are or how reporting will occur. 7. A short-term action plan is mentioned in the Fisheries 2030 document but no specifics are provided. There is some detail about the plan in the Minister of Fisheries response to Alliance members, dated 11 September. The Minister s August 18 th paper to his Cabinet colleagues, Increasing The Contribution of the Fisheries Sector to the New Zealand Economy (CP), provides specific details about the action plan and new actions that may require legislative reform. Minister s 2030 Advice 8. On 11 September the Minister wrote to Alliance members acknowledging the meeting held in Wellington on 3 August, and the concerns raised in various submissions. The Minister outlines a number of the 2030 action points that will be addressed over the next five years, these include: a. Developing alternative stock management targets within environmental limits [action 1.2]; b. Supporting environmental certification and implement product traceability certification for NZ fisheries [action 3.2]; c. Setting and implement harvest strategy standards [action 5.1]; April 2010 Hui Report July

78 d. Setting environmental standards, including for threatened and protected species and seabed impacts [action 6.2]; e. Enhancing the framework for fisheries management planning, including the use of decision rules to adjust harvest levels over time [action 5.2]; f. Determining the best options for information collection on catch from amateur fisheries, including the implementation of charter boat reporting [action 10.4]; and g. Seeking consensus on how to fully implement the Fisheries Deed of Settlement and historical Treaty settlements [action 12.2]. Minister s 2030 Advice to Cabinet 9. In late August the Minister provided his Cabinet colleagues with a report that sets out a strategy and recommended actions to enable the [fisheries] sector to make a significantly greater sustainable contribution to the New Zealand economy. [CP, page 1]. 10. The Minister identified various aspects of the feedback received, the commercial sector s preference is on improving economic performance, environmentalists want environmental performance, amateurs want abundance and customary interests seek full recognition of customary interests. [CP, p2] 11. Minister suggested the difference between sector views is more to do with sequence of change, the language used and priority rather than a fundamental opposition to the goal or outcomes. [CP, p2]. 12. Minister identified a Plan of Action and advises that the Ministry and parts of the sector are already working on a number of the identified actions. The sector and actions are not specified. [CP, p3] 13. Objective-based fisheries management planning, government-set standards and sector responsibilities relevant to their share of the fishery, indicates a fairly wide programme of reform is anticipated. [CP, p3] 14. Minister indicates that commercial interests are most likely to take collective responsibility for management before other interest groups. In the Minister s view, having management operate within government-set standards will mitigate environmentalist s concerns. [CP, p3] 15. The Plan of Action is focused on seven aspects; some of those are priorities to be dealt with over the next five years. The Minister has identified new areas of work, some of which will require legislative reform. [CP, p4] The main points are: a. Improving the management framework; b. Supporting aquaculture and international objectives; c. Ensuring sustainability of fish stocks; d. Improving fisheries information; e. Building sector leadership and capacity; f. Meeting obligations to Maori; and g. Enabling collective management responsibility. 16. Minister has identified that statutory amendment is required to: a. Improve management planning by providing clarity and certainty about environmental limits and management objectives; b. Specify the range within which stock management targets may be set; and April 2010 Hui Report July

79 c. Enable collective management responsibility. 17. Minister assured his colleagues the changes are not radical and there is no need for urgent law change. [CP, p5] 18. MFish is due to report back to the Minister on progress by June [CP, p5] 19. Minister advises his colleagues that sector comments on the 2030 process were largely positive. [CP, p5] 20. Also, that reform options would be appropriately developed through focused engagement with the sector rather than having a public consultation process. [CP, p6] 21. Reform options will be developed through engagement with tangata whenua and take into account implementation of the Treaty Strategy. [CP, p6] Contributors to Alliance Contributors to the Alliance of environmental and non-commercial fishing interest groups include: The ; Greenpeace New Zealand Aotearoa; The Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand; The Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand (ECO); The New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council (NZBGFC); The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC); The Guardians of Hawke Bay Fisheries; The New Zealand Angling and Casting Association (NZACA); The Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of NZ (CORANZ); The Marlborough Recreational Fishers Association; The Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association; and option4. Summary of Alliance feedback Feedback from the Alliance submitted in response to the draft Fisheries 2030 proposals. Date (2009) Description 17 June Alliance letter and alternative collective view to the Minister of Fisheries and MFish 17 June Sustainable strategies for more fish in the water joint fishing groups submission to Minister and MFish 31 July More fish in the water II Alliance submission, alternative strategies and recommendations to the Minister and MFish 3 Aug Alliance meeting with the Minister of Fisheries 13 Aug Alliance letter to the Minister of Fisheries 26 Aug Alliance letter to the Primary Production Select Committee April 2010 Hui Report July

80 Appendix Two - Joint Bladder Kelp Submission 2009 More fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto te wai Tracey Steel Ministry of Fisheries PO Box 1020 Wellington tracey.steel@fish.govt.nz 22 September 2009 Dear Tracey Introduction of Bladder Kelp Seaweed (KBB) in Fisheries Management Areas 3 and 4 into the quota management system on 1 October Submission: That Bladder Kelp Seaweed, Macrocystis pyrifera, in all Fisheries Management Areas is not introduced into the quota management system on 1 October The option4 and Working Group teams believe while it might be administratively convenient to manage Bladder Kelp Seaweed within the quota management system, we would be better served with knowing what other management options are available. At this stage we are not aware of any other mechanism that can protect species of such ecological and cultural significance. If there is no suitable mechanism available then the Minister ought to continue the moratorium until one is found. We do not agree with creating private property rights by issuing any Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) for this species after October That is because attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed has very high ecological, environmental, social and cultural values. Attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed is a taonga [treasure] that needs to be conserved so the environment can sustain itself and future generations of New Zealanders. April 2010 Hui Report July

81 Conflict with MfE guidelines The proposal by MFish to harvest Macrocystis contradicts recent advice from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) in its publication "Preparing for coastal change" (March 2009). This publication is based on an extensive NIWA report. The MfE publication notes as one of four key principles for managing coastal hazards: Importance of natural coastal margins. The dual role of natural coastal margins as the fundamental form of coastal defence and as an environmental, social and cultural resource must be recognised in the decision making process. Consequently, natural coastal margins should be secured and protected. Margins include rocky coast and kelp beds. Our team members emphasise that extensive research of seaweeds is required before any harvesting is considered. This is particularly important in FMA3, where Dusky Dolphins are found. Given the environmental, social and cultural significance of seaweeds we expect and encourage the Minister to take a precautionary approach to managing these species, and in doing so apply the statutory obligations to provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in Bladder Kelp Seaweed and an interest in the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned, and have particular regard to kaitiakitanga [guardianship] in relation to this natural resource on which so many species rely on for health and abundance. We appreciate the opportunity to submit on these proposals for attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed and would like to be kept informed of any future developments. Yours sincerely Trish Rea On behalf of the option4 team PO Box Parnell, Auckland. Paul Haddon On behalf of the PO Box 263 Kaikohe April 2010 Hui Report July

82 Appendix Three - Joint Bladder Kelp Submission 2010 More fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto te wai Tracey Steel Ministry of Fisheries PO Box 1020 Wellington tracey.steel@fish.govt.nz 15 April 2010 Dear Tracey Setting of management controls to support the introduction of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed (KBBG) in Fisheries Management Areas 3 and 4 into the quota management system on 1 October Submission: That management proposals for Bladder Kelp Seaweed, Macrocystis pyrifera, in Fisheries Management Areas 3 and 4 are unlawful, in that they breach the Purpose and Principles of the Fisheries Act 1996, and explicitly undermine stated government policy including Fisheries 2030; That the concerns raised in the submission by the Wellington Marine Fishers Association are valid and ought to be addressed before the total allowable catch (TAC), the allowances and total allowable commercial catch (TACC) are determined for KBB 3G and KBB 4G stocks. That the Minister set the TACC for KBB 3G after the TAC has been set and allowances made for other mortality and non-commercial fishing interests, both customary and recreational, and the TACC be set at: o Zero; or o 17 tonnes - Option 3, based on average annual catch, mostly from Akaroa Harbour, with input controls. That the Minister set the TACC for KBB 4G after the TAC has been set and allowances made for other mortality and non-commercial fishing interests, both customary and recreational, and the TACC be set at: o Zero; or o 1 tonne - Option 2, based on an average annual catch of 200Kg from the Chatham Islands, with input controls. April 2010 Hui Report July

83 Background 1. In September 2009 the option4 and Working Group teams (the joint submitters) submitted that Bladder Kelp Seaweed, Macrocystis pyrifera, in all Fisheries Management Areas is not introduced into the quota management system (QMS) on 1 October That was because there was, and still is, no suitable management mechanism that can protect species of such ecological and cultural significance. 2. The Minister was advised to continue the moratorium on commercial harvest of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed until a suitable management mechanism was found. 3. We still strongly object to the creation of private property rights, by the issuance of any Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ), for this species after October That is because attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed has very high ecological, environmental, social and cultural values. 4. Attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed is a taonga [treasure] that needs to be conserved so the environment can sustain itself and future generations of New Zealanders. QMS Introduction 5. In November 2009 the Minister of Fisheries, decided to introduce attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed in Areas 3 and 4 into the QMS on 1 October Phil Heatley noted in his decision letter that, submissions from both commercial and non-commercial stakeholders overwhelmingly support the decision to introduce bladder kelp in FMA 3 and 4 into the QMS in recognition of the important role seaweeds have in the marine environment. 6. This statement is a misconstruction of the truth. The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) Final Advice Paper (FAP) notes that there were 26 submissions in response to the initial proposals as follows: a. Five industry submissions in support of QMS introduction with higher commercial catch limits; b. 14 submission in support of QMS introduction with a TAC set at zero; and c. Seven submissions opposing QMS introduction. Some of those preferred a zero TAC if attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed was introduced into the QMS. 7. Distorting the facts at this early stage of managing attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed within the QMS does not inspire stakeholder confidence in the future management of this taonga [treasure]. Issues 8. The basis for QMS introduction for attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed is flawed. 9. Attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed forms an important part of the near-shore habitat. 10. MFish proposals lack any knowledge or assessment of the impact of increased commercial harvesting of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed. 11. Attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed has many known, and unknown, interdependent species. 12. It is inevitable that commercial harvesting will occur closest to point of landing thus increasing the risk to productivity and ecological balance in these areas. 13. There is no history of any substantial harvest of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed in KBB 4G or 3G, except for Akaroa Harbour in 2007/ April 2010 Hui Report July

84 14. The TAC and TACC in option 1 for KBB 3G is based on a 1999 study limited to three areas within Akaroa Harbour. Total allowable catch (TAC) 15. The MFish proposals assume a low sustainability risk. There is no evidence to support this assumption. 16. Section 13(2A) is being used to justify the TAC when no biomass or yield estimates are available. While sadly, this is now lawful under the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Act 2008, the Minister still has a statutory obligation to act in a precautionary manner. 17. Section 13(2A)(b) places a burden on the Minister, when setting a total allowable catch (TAC) to have regard to the interdependence of stocks, the biological characteristics of the stock, and any environmental conditions affecting the stock; and. International literature suggests that large changes occur when kelp forests are cut, with direct consequences to associated species, and is undoubtedly responsible for significant changes to the environmental conditions of the area of harvest. It is not clear how the IPP meets this legal threshold. MFish will need to provide the Minister with this available information so that he can give regard to it and therefore ensure his decision fulfils the legal requirements. 18. MFish propose TACC option 3 for KBB 3G (17 t) and option 2 for KBB 4G (2 t), based on historical catch. MFish also suggest the total allowable catch (TAC) can be set on the basis of the total allowable commercial catch (TACC). This is an unlawful approach. The Fisheries Act 1996 obliges the Minister to set the TAC prior to considering the non-commercial allowances and an amount for fishing related mortality, and before setting the TACC. 19. MFish suggest (page 13) that in the absence of a reliable estimate of sustainable yield, the TAC options represent points on a continuum (from 18.2 tonnes to 377 tonnes for KBB 3G and 1 tonnes to 25 tonnes for KBB 4G). Each option represents a different balance in terms of risk to sustainability (including impacts on associated species) and benefits from utilisation. MFish continue, The Minister is free to choose any point on the continuum, having regard to information in this IPP and submissions from stakeholders. This is patently incorrect. The Minister has a legal obligation to manage fisheries sustainably, using the best available information, to enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being. This obligation does not extend to the Minister an opportunity to freely pick a dot on a line and pretend that is good fisheries management. There are far too many risks involved with this approach, not the least of which is breaching the legislation. Hardly world best practise Utilisation 20. After the Minister has set the TAC to ensure sustainability his next function is determine the level of utilisation. Section 8 of the Fisheries Act 1996 defines utilisation as meaning conserving, using, enhancing, and developing fisheries resources to enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being. 21. The Minister could lawfully set the Total allowable catch (TAC) at zero given that attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed is a species of environmental, social and cultural significance. 22. If attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed is to be harvested it ought to be used conservatively. 23. Given its importance the allowances for other mortality and non-commercial fishing interests, both Maori customary and recreational, also need to be set realistically. April 2010 Hui Report July

85 Allowance for other mortality 24. Harvesting controls that require hand-gathering of Bladder Kelp Seaweed under the old permit system will no longer apply and mechanical gathering will be permitted from 1 October The joint submitters have serious concerns about the use of industrial harvesting techniques on such an ecologically sensitive species. Given the likelihood of increased mortality associated with mechanical gathering the allowance for fishing related mortality needs to be higher than the MFish proposed 1 tonne. 26. Moreover, it is illogical for MFish to propose an allowance of 1 tonne for fishing related mortality under all the management options, irrespective of the proposed TACCs. Surely there will be more mortality when t is harvested than if 1 tonne is harvested. 27. The Minister has a statutory obligation to ensure that all mortality is within the TAC, therefore he must allow for the loss associated with the various management options. Allowances for non-commercial fishing interests 28. Before the Minister can set the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) allowances must be made for non-commercial fishing interests, both Maori customary and recreational. MFish propose a nominal 0.1 tonne under all management options. 29. The Minister would be in breach of his statutory obligations if he only allows a nominal 0.1 tonne for non-commercial fishing interests because these environmental, cultural and social interests vary from area to area and could extend to the entire attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed population. 30. The joint submitters expect the Minister to make a realistic allowance that provides for these broad non-commercial interests and enables utilisation in terms of conservation. 31. The joint submitters await, with interest, the Minister s decision on allowances and reasons for those decisions. Total allowable commercial catch (TACC) 32. In all five management options MFish propose a total allowable commercial catch (TACC) that equates to the total allowable catch (TAC) minus 1.2 tonne for the combined allowances. As noted previously, this is not a lawful approach. 33. The Minister cannot determine the allowances until after this consultation process is completed, a quantitative and qualitative assessment has been made and s12(1)(b) obligations have been met. Other management measures 34. There are no other management measures proposed even though MFish identify there is a risk of localised depletion. 35. There are no proposed harvest method controls, strategy or fisheries plan to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of fishing on the environment. The Minister must be advised that he is obliged to ensure sustainability by acting in accordance with ss 8, 9 and 10, the Purpose and Principles, of the Fisheries Act Precautionary management 36. The notion that the Minister can allow increased commercial harvest of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed on the basis that further controls can be introduced, by applying s11, if unacceptable adverse effects become apparent is contrary to the legal requirement on the Minister to act cautiously when information is poor (s10). April 2010 Hui Report July

86 37. The unacceptable risks associated with this approach is that: a. There is likely to be a high interdependence of species around attached Bladder Kelp forests, and these are not known, to the extent that MFish cannot describe these relationships; b. That commercial harvesting will inevitably occur in localised areas resulting in huge loss of forest cover in some areas; and c. In the absence of a harvest or fisheries plan there is no incentive or requirement to spread the commercial harvest over the wider KBB 3G or KBB 4G Fisheries Management Areas. 38. MFish has not provided the Minister or stakeholders with sufficient information that would enable an informed opinion to be made regarding the level of sustainable harvest for attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed and it s interdependent species. 39. Given the lack of available information, there is an extremely high risk in allowing expansion of the commercial harvest of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed. 40. There is a clear need to manage the commercial harvest of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed to mitigate the substantial risks associated with this MFish proposal. 41. A slow, controlled expansion of harvest with identified risks mitigated by input controls is the only acceptable, lawful approach the Minister can take if he is to comply with the Purpose and Principles of the Fisheries Act The precautionary principle of the Act will breached if the Minister sets the TAC and TACC with the view that future damage resulting from increased commercial harvest can be managed by applying section Intervention after the ecosystem has been damaged is too risky because it may take many years to determine that damage has occurred and may, by that stage, be too late to restore the ecological balance. 44. The Minister s obligation to act in accordance with the Fisheries Act precautionary principles is to avoid fishing-related adverse effects. 45. The MFish proposal identifies some of the risks associated with increasing commercial harvest of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed, but makes no recommendations that will sufficiently manage those risks. Section 12 obligations to Maori 46. MFish note on page 2 of the Initial Position Paper (IPP), that this process is in accordance with s12 of the Fisheries Act The joint submitters note that section 12 has once again been omitted from the statutory considerations section in Appendix 1 of the IPP. 48. While MFish may consider that issuing an IPP is sufficient to fulfil the Minister s obligation to consult with both Maori and non-maori fishing interests, s12(1)(b) requires that the Minister, before making any sustainability decisions, shall provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua having i. a non-commercial interest in the stock concerned; or ii. an interest in the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned and have particular regard to kaitiakitanga. April 2010 Hui Report July

87 49. There is no evidence to suggest that these s12(1)(b) obligations have been met. Kaitiakitanga [guardianship] is not even mentioned in the IPP. This is a serious breach of statutory duty. 50. Failure to fulfil the statutory obligations as required by s12(1)(b) leaves the Minister open to challenge. 51. This failure is also in contravention of government policy and the Ministry s Statement of Intent, The Government has committed to specific obligations with tangata whenua, including their input and participation in fisheries management, particularly regarding sustainability decisions that affect their fishing interests Given the ecological and cultural significance of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed and the risks to inshore fisheries the joint submitters request details from the Minister and MFish as to: a. How and when input and participation has been provided for during this process to set management controls to support the introduction of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed in FMA 3 and FMA 4 into the QMS on 1 October 2010; and b. How, when and where particular regard has been given to kaitiakitanga during this process to set management controls to support the introduction of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed in FMA 3 and FMA 4 into the QMS on 1 October Government policy 53. Sound governance is a common theme in the government s Fisheries policy. To achieve the goal of New Zealanders maximising benefits from the use of fisheries within environmental limits there are two outcomes sought: use and environment. These proposals for attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed management contravene these outcomes, namely the following a. Use healthy fisheries resources in their aquatic environment that reflect and provide for intrinsic and amenity value; and b. Environment biodiversity and the function of ecological systems, including trophic linkages are conserved. 54. MFish appears to present a rosy economic future for the commercial harvesting of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed and that a few hundred tonnes here or there are of little or no consequence. In the absence of more information these assumptions could be right, but nobody seems to know. Equally, MFish could be very wrong and significant ecosystem damage could occur. 55. By the time any adverse effects are noticeable, the opportunity to remedy or mitigate the damage could be lost. This is an unacceptable management risk that would not be condoned for any on-land resource. Conclusion The joint submitters reiterate the concerns expressed in other non-commercial submissions, particularly those made by Jim Mikoz in the Wellington Marine Fishers Association s document. Extensive research of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed is required before any harvesting is considered. This is particularly important in FMA3, where Dusky Dolphins are found. Given the environmental, social and cultural significance of attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed we expect the Minister to take a precautionary approach to managing this species. In doing so the Minister must apply the statutory obligations to provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua having a non-commercial 19 Statement of Intent , Ministry of Fisheries, page April 2010 Hui Report July

88 interest in seaweed and an interest in the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned, and have particular regard to kaitiakitanga [guardianship] in relation to this natural resource on which so many species rely on for health and abundance. Our collective goal as joint submitters is to achieve "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai". We do not consider the proposed management controls for attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed will achieve this. It is of great concern that the proposed management measures will actually result in less abundance and an unbalanced marine environment, particularly in heavily harvested areas. As such, the joint submitters do not support the proposed management controls for attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed and highlight the various statutory breaches associated with the MFish proposals. We appreciate the opportunity to submit on these proposals for attached Bladder Kelp Seaweed and would like to be kept informed of any future developments. The joint submitters look forward to receiving timely answers to our questions, in paragraph 52, related to s12(1)(b) obligations. Yours sincerely Trish Rea On behalf of the option4 team PO Box Parnell, Auckland. Paul Haddon On behalf of the PO Box 263 Kaikohe April 2010 Hui Report July

89 April 2010 Hui Report July

90 Appendix Four - Letter to Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa More fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai May 17 th 2010 Mangakahia Rd Kaikohe Letter to Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa from the Nga mihi ki Ranginui, nga mihi ki Papatuanuku, nga mihi hoki ki a ratou kua mene atu ra ki te Po. Ki a koe te Rangatira e Hura i roto i tou okiokinga e Pa, e moe, e moe, kia huri tuara ki a matou. Na reira e nga Rangatira o nga hapu o Taiamai ki te Marangai me nga Tangata Kaitiaki o Te Komiti Whakature i nga Taonga a Tangaroa tenei te mihi nui ki a koutou. Na reira e hoa ma kia kaha, kia maia, kia uu te Kaitiakitanga hei mauri ora. The, the mid north iwi fisheries forum, acknowledge Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa and the effort of all involved to achieve "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai" by implementing Te Puna Mataitai. Given the difficulties in achieving a successful outcome and the history of Te Puna Mataitai application (refer Appendix One), the resolved at its April 2010 hui that it would write to the Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley, asking for clarification and an explanation as to why the approval process has taken so long. At the Oturei Marae hui the Accord s constituent organisations expressed deep whakama [embarrassment] due to the inability of the Ministry and the Minister to enable tangata whenua to fulfil their sacred obligations and aspirations as kaitiaki [guardians], to give effect to Te Puna Mataitai application and pay respect to the effort of Te Komiti and our late, respected leader Judah Heihei. The Accord, the mid north iwi fisheries forum, asks Te Komiti for their approval in sending the following message to the Minister of Fisheries Proposed letter to Minister of Fisheries from the E te Minita, Rangatira o te Tari Tautiaki i nga tini a Tangaroa, anei te mihi. He mihi ki a koe e Ta me ou hoa a te Kawanatanga. Tenei he inoi ki a koe, kia rea te maramatanga a te kaupapa nei, ana, kia tu te maataitai i whakaturea nei e nga Tangata kaitiaki o Taiamai ki te Marangai. April 2010 Hui Report July

91 The and its constituent organisations are deeply concerned at the lack of progress in implementing Te Puna Mataitai. The delay in achieving Ministerial approval for this application by Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa is unacceptable. With the approval of Te Komiti, the Accord requests an explanation as to why there has been no progress and an expected date of approval. Participants in the, the mid north iwi fisheries forum, represent a wide spectrum of constituents that includes the commercial and non-commercial interests of Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua and other northern iwi and hapu, environmental and fishing interest groups. Greenpeace, the Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand, Forest & Bird, option4 and NZ Sport Fishing representatives are regular contributors to the. We fully tautoko [support] Te Komiti in their sincere endeavours to give effect to their sacred obligations to practice kaitiakitanga within their rohe moana, in the northern Bay of Islands. The Accord is also concerned at the apparent double standard being applied to this process. We understand there was one objection that could not be resolved, despite earnest negotiations. In contrast, the Accord is not aware of any other process where the Ministry of Fisheries is expected to achieve 100 percent consensus before it implements its own initiatives. Despite the obligations of the Crown to fulfil its statutory duties pursuant to Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and the Fisheries Act 1996, tangata whenua are expected to achieve consensus beyond what an entire Ministry of the Crown is obliged to attain. This expectation on tangata whenua reeks of inconsistency and obstruction. The passing of our co-chairman and the Maataitai main proponent, Judah Heihei, has heightened the Accord s awareness of the need for the Crown to enable tangata whenua to fulfil their role as kaitiaki, provide for their traditional, customary and amateur fishing needs, and to protect their broad interests in coastal fisheries. MFISH has previously recognised the Crown s obligations; basically there are three main requirements, which are: The Crown acts reasonably and in good faith in its dealings with Maori; The Crown makes informed decisions; and The Crown avoids impediments to providing redress, and avoids creating new grievances 21. Clearly these obligations have not been met in the process to implement Te Puna Mataitai. The acknowledges and appreciates the sincere effort of MFISH Pou Hononga, Natasha Clarke, and Pou Takawaenga, Bevan Hunter, to assist Te Komiti in this application process. In June 2009 MFISH advised they had 33 Mataitai applications to process. We envisage that the assessment of the Te Puna Mataitai reserve application should occur within the next few months. At this time, the Ministry anticipates completing this assessment and advising the Minister of Fisheries within the next year. The Accord reiterates that the Minister must recognise and give effect to the kaitiakitanga aspirations and obligations of Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa. We look forward to your prompt response and indication of when this application will be approved, and ultimately to the designation, this year, of Te Puna Mataitai - a testament and tribute to the work of Judah Heihei. 21 Occasional Papers: Obligations to Maori, Ministry of Fisheries, December 2002, p6, section 82. April 2010 Hui Report July

92 As stated above, the Accord, the mid north iwi fisheries forum, asks Te Komiti for your approval in sending the letter to the Minister of Fisheries. Na reira nga Rangatira o matou, koutou nga Tangata Kaitiaki ki nga uri a Tangaroa i nga tai Tokerau, haere tonu nga mihi. George Riley Co-chairman Appendix One Brief history of Te Puna Mataitai process Te Komiti Whakature I Nga Taonga a Tangaroa lodged a formal application for Te Puna Mataitai with the Ministry of Fisheries on 2 April Te Komiti represents 14 hapu/marae with an interest in the northern Bay of Islands. Rohe Moana was formally gazetted in 2002, pursuant to the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations The proposed maataitai encompasses approximately 7.6 square miles, from Purerua Peninsula, out to the Black Rocks, north past the Ninepin to Kowhatuhuri Point. Te Komiti spent over ten years researching the options to give meaningful effect to their sacred obligations to deliver kaitiakitanga [guardianship] of their rohe moana, to achieve "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai". A previous Taiapure application, lodged in the late 1990s has since lapsed. Meetings with local fishermen, landowners and marine interest groups have been ongoing. MFISH community consultation concluded in August 2008 and a public meeting was held at Whitiora marae, Te Tii, in October. A month later Te Komiti, MFISH officials and the lone objector, a commercial Cray-fisher, met in Kerikeri in an effort to resolve the objection. A second public consultation round occurred and closed in December After considering all the submissions Te Komiti confirmed to MFISH they did not wish to amend the Mataitai application in March In June 2009 MFISH advised they had 33 Mataitai applications to process. We envisage that the assessment of the Te Puna Mataitai reserve application should occur within the next few months. At this time, the Ministry anticipates completing this assessment and advising the Minister of Fisheries within the next year. April 2010 Hui Report July

93 April 2010 Hui Report July

94 Appendix Five - More Fish in the Water II Strategy MORE FISH IN THE WATER Kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai Hon. Phil Heatley Minister of Fisheries Parliament Buildings Wellington Phil.Heatley@parliament.govt.nz 31 July 2009 Dear Minister Fisheries an alternative vision and strategy from environmental interests, and non-commercial fishing interests On June 17, 2009 our organisations sent you a collective response to the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) Fisheries 2030 proposals. Some of these groups also provided an alternative approach to fisheries management entitled Sustainable Strategies for More Fish in the Water. In our letter of 17 June we offered to meet with you so we can discuss our collective vision and strategy for the future sustainable management of our fisheries and marine environment, as we plan for April 2010 Hui Report July

95 Representatives from most of our organisations have recently received and accepted an invitation to attend a meeting with you in Wellington in August. Whilst we understand the government s intention of improving the benefits from our fisheries resources, this must be neither at the risk of environmentally sustainable fishing nor at the expense of long-term social and cultural benefits. To achieve this we must adhere to the long-term intention of the Fisheries Act 1996, to conserve our fisheries for future generations of New Zealanders and by applying and giving meaningful effect to the statutory obligation on the Minister to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga (guardianship/stewardship) of our fisheries and environment, our taonga. Our intention in this letter and at our discussion with you is to outline practical, immediate measures to improve harvesting techniques thereby providing food and jobs for New Zealanders while reducing the risks to the health and abundance of our fisheries and the marine environment. To ensure the best collective outcome from our discussion with you we have developed an outline of specific strategies to achieve successful implementation of both the urgent and long-term actions referred to in our alternative management document. Those action points are included as an Action List in Appendix A. Also for your assistance, we enclose a summary of our recommendations to achieve the sustainable management of our fisheries. Current Fisheries 2030 proposals We share major concerns about the emphasis on maximising use and economic benefits from our fisheries and the marine environment and therefore do not support the Fisheries 2030 strategy, vision and process in its current form. In our view, the general impetus of the Fisheries 2030 proposals would be to increase the adverse effects on both the health and abundance of our fisheries and the marine environment while being detrimental to New Zealanders social and cultural and ultimately economic wellbeing. This is because the Fisheries 2030 project emphasises economic returns over other benefits by seeking to justify increased economic returns, which will most likely translate into a greater annual catch by commercial fishing interests. The problem is loss of value-added. The project also foreshadows devolution of fisheries management and research to fishing industry interests. To us this means more dead fish and a bleaker future for our fisheries and the health of our seas. We consider this an environmentally risky approach for short-term economic gain that stretches the credibility of sustainable management. Alternative management strategies Listed below are a number of management strategies that we recommend as alternatives to the current Fisheries 2030 proposals, and the related Action points outlined in Appendix A. Improving economic returns from well-managed fisheries (Actions a - j) Many of our fisheries are at or below a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), as presently defined in the Fisheries Act. Smaller fish make up a larger proportion of the biomass leading to high juvenile mortality, wastage and lower yield per recruit. For example, over 50 percent of the catch in the Chatham Rise hoki fishery is of juvenile fish. In the Crayfish 3 (CRA3) management area about 50 percent of the weight of crayfish taken from around Gisborne area is below the minimum legal size for recreational fishers. Failure by MFish to address damaging practices leads to dissatisfaction amongst fisheries users and tension between managers and those with an interest in the health and abundance of our marine environment. April 2010 Hui Report July

96 The good news is that if fisheries stocks were allowed to recover and damaging fishing methods phased out, there would be much less conflict. Another benefit is significant financial returns, as consumers and the world market increasingly demand higher standards as they look for the ethical and environmentally traceable products. The harvesting of wild fish and marine life requires the careful consideration of a complex web of social and political factors, biological principles and environmental impacts. At times, economic and political demands may be at odds with biological principles that require and dictate sensible harvest management. Maintaining biodiversity, productivity and ensuring the interdependence of stocks must not be sacrificed for short-term economic gains. This is because we need to protect the future of both our fisheries and New Zealand s other industries that depend on our green brand. We recommend that economic returns be improved by implementing a strategy to increase the yield from each fish, by leaving them in the water to grow older and larger. Maintaining fish populations at higher biomass levels will support catch limits that satisfy both fishing and environmental interest groups. This will also enable us to pass on this same marine abundance and diversity to future generations of New Zealanders. Environmental precaution and an ecosystem approach (Actions b - e and h - j) Existing fish stock management strategies are made on the basis of numerical models of single species or stocks. These models are vigorously defended and relied on by MFish to provide management advice to the Minister. These single-species models are built on numerous assumptions and insufficient research, adding to significant uncertainty, which makes reliable estimations of sensible catch limits difficult if not impossible. Insufficient margins are allowed for error and overshoot of harvesting. While these models may rationalise catch limits, they fail to inform managers of the consequences to multispecies fisheries when industrial fishing depletes a species to 20 percent of its original size or less. Similarly, the current practice of simply plugging in a Recreational Harvest Estimate (RHE) adds little towards modeling a species population dynamics in these same, depleted fisheries. Any ability that might exist for managing fish stocks by biomass estimates is undermined by the belief that greater accuracy in catch estimates will deliver an accurate biomass estimate. The raft of assumptions in the model disguise or swamp anything delivered by a single data point. Many models also assume that single stocks exist in isolation and ignore the interdependence of stocks and the effects of fishing on the wider marine environment. The failure to incorporate the full effects of harvesting, multi-species interactions, environmental factors, habitat modification, and productivity changes deprive these models of much of their usefulness. Despite both a clear need for improved research and adding more species to the QMS, MFish is spending less on research (e.g. trawl surveys) than it did in the early 1990s. Failure to incorporate an ecosystem approach into advice and decision-making has significant adverse impacts on our ability to manage fisheries well. The precautionary approach is advised by the FAO to ensure that fisheries managers act cautiously. Litigation by the commercial sector around s10 of the Fisheries Act demonstrates a need to strengthen the precautionary principle. Doing so would facilitate compliance with the intention and purpose of the Fisheries Act, and ensure a future for our fisheries. We recommend future stock assessment models that integrate habitat and spatial concerns, genetics, multispecies interactions, environmental factors, the effects of harvesting on the ecosystem, model misspecification and socio-economic concerns. In developing such models the limitations of current fisheries science must be made explicit and incorporated at the management, policy and advice levels. Where information is lacking or uncertain, precautionary management procedures and decision-making to protect the environment is crucial. April 2010 Hui Report July

97 Moving away from reliance on Maximum Sustainable Yield (Actions a and b) Current management focuses on maximum sustainable yield (MSY); a knife-edge target that assumes accurate measurement is possible before fish stocks decline. In striving to achieve this target natural fish population dynamics are altered to focus on just a few, commercially taken year classes. It is now widely acknowledged and accepted that information on fish stocks can be remarkably uncertain therefore making fisheries management unreliable and environmentally risky. Reducing the number of age classes in a population is not only risky in terms of its environmental consequences; it can also lead to an uneconomic fishery. Fewer year classes reduces the resilience of the stock to respond to a number of human and natural stressors overfishing, pollution, climatic variation and food availability. In combination, important fisheries such as hoki have crashed as overfishing and poor recruitment have resulted in a multitude of problems including small size-class dominance. We recommend moving away from the current MSY target to the alternative strategy of maintaining a much higher biomass of individual fish stocks, with a broad range of age classes, to ensure productivity and diversity across the marine ecosystem as a whole, and to provide some risk margin. Reducing wastage (Actions c, e and h) The search for greater value from fisheries begins with identifying the causes of wastage, and then adopting practices to reduce and eventually eliminate fishing practices that cause this wastage. Some fishing methods and fishing gear have low selectivity i.e. they are indiscriminate and catch a variety of marine life including non-target resources. Some also target and catch these juveniles and barely-legal size fish. The QMS incentivises the discard of non-qms fish and whilst illegal, discarding of small QMS fish is common practice in some fisheries, for example the ling and hoki trawl fisheries. Whilst considered to be of low value by commercial fishers, their removal from the marine environment can be significant and can lead to long-term disturbances of food web assemblages and even biodiversity loss. As a result of the current fisheries management approach, many undersized fish are caught and unnecessarily killed by commercial bulk-harvesting fishing methods. Losses to the fish population, subsequent productivity and natural biodiversity are not measured accurately or adequately quantified in the stock assessment process. All users inflict mortality as they catch fish and each is capable of, and has a responsibility for, reducing any adverse impacts on the fishery and the environment. We recommend increasing the biomass and age of fish to reduce wastage. Minimising bycatch levels and utlilising the whole fish caught are other ways to reduce this waste thereby conserving and showing respect for the resource. Reversing the unintended genetic consequences of past management practices. (Actions a, d and e) The use of Minimum Legal Size (MLS) and Minimum Mesh Size (MMS) both have unintended consequences in that they strongly select for smaller, slower growing and faster maturing fish, which reduces productivity 22. The best and most urgent solution is to rebuild stocks. Developing high-tech selection in gear is also a possible strategy. 22 Evolution: Unnatural Selection, Stenseth NC and Dunlop ES, 12 February Marine Conservation Biology, Evolutionary Impacts of Fishing on Target Populations, Law R and Stokes K, April 2010 Hui Report July

98 A healthy fish stock is one that comprises many age classes to buffer the stock for several decades, regardless of environmental or human induced disturbances. We recommend the development of strategies and practices to both enable the active selection of more productive fish and to reverse the unintended genetic selection pressure on fisheries. Solutions can be adapted to suit both local conditions and the community s aspirations for fisheries management. Leaving large fish in the water (Actions c, d and i) Management targeted at MSY results in the removal of large fish and a greater proportion of the fish population that are close to the current legal size. Larger specimens of individual fish produce proportionally higher levels of successful recruitment while retaining the genetic memory of bigger individuals. These are a valuable source of productivity and, as such, ought to be protected from mass exploitation. Many of New Zealand s commercial fisheries still target and harvest fish from spawning aggregations (schools) even though this practice has been prohibited in many other countries. We recommend seasonal and area-based management controls to protect larger, breeding fish thereby ensuring high levels of recruitment and providing insurance for the future health and abundance of New Zealand s fisheries. Improving yield and potential earning per recruit (Actions d and e) The single biggest action to improve yield and economic return is to improve the health of our marine environment and increase the abundance of marine populations. We recommend measures that include increasing the minimum legal size (MLS) of fish, where appropriate, to increase the yield from each recruit, and to maximise the earnings from each fish killed. Increasing minimum sizes Shifting focus from MSY to optimum economic yield (OEY) would improve productivity and returns from fisheries. For example, increasing the snapper minimum size from 25/27cm to 30cm, and an increase in minimum sizes for Rock Lobster would improve yield, over time, and would increase the ability of fish populations to cope with environmental fluctuations and other stressors. An agreed, staged size increase with management controls would be required to achieve the benefits from these measures without causing additional mortality of undersized fish or excessive hardship for fishers. Individual non-commercial fishing entitlements are prescribed in numbers of fish kept. This focus on numbers is a powerful incentive that encourages non-commercial fishers to search for larger fish in an effort to improve returns per fish caught. A positive outcome from having a healthy and abundant fishery is that fewer numbers of fish are killed for a higher yield. Maximising earnings per fish Currently the biggest disincentive for commercial fishers to maximise earning per fish is the specification of commercial catch entitlements in tonnes or kilograms rather than numbers. If commercial fishers were limited to a specific number of fish they would be more inclined to seek larger specimens to improve the yield per fish. Most fisheries would have to be more abundant and healthier to achieve that outcome. We recommend strong incentives to improve the yield from commercial fishing, starting with allowing the biomass of a fish stock to increase resulting in the presence of larger fish as a consequence. Currently, true April 2010 Hui Report July

99 mortality is masked by the lack of detail on how many fish are killed in the process of harvesting the retained catch. Eliminating destructive fishing methods (Actions c - e and h) Destructive fishing methods such as dredging, bottom trawling and Danish seining are responsible for considerable adverse environmental impacts. Such methods succeed only in providing short-term gain to commercial fishers who use these techniques, with the unwanted result of accelerated and irreversible decline in the health and abundance of our fisheries resources and marine biodiversity. We recommend working towards eliminating destructive fishing practices by providing incentives to switch to alternative, more sustainable fishing technologies that incur higher market value through increased consumer demand for such products. Responding to the effects of climate change (Action l) Climate changes are increasingly being recognised as major challenges to fisheries management. While some species may benefit from warmer seas (e.g. snapper) others will not. Of major concern is the effect of ocean acidification as this leads to the breakdown of the very foundations of life in our seas. The impact on key prey species and our marine resource is very uncertain. We recommend a stronger precautionary approach in fisheries management in response to the uncertainty associated with the effects of climate change. Integrate land management with marine and fisheries management (Actions c, d, f and i) Substantial changes in estuarine and coastal habitats and ecosystems are known to have occurred over the last 100 or more years, and to still be occurring. These impacts have developed as fisheries have developed and have driven population trends downwards in most coastal species. It is very clear that the marine environment should not be managed in isolation from the adverse effects of land-based activities. Our poor understanding of the inter-connected nature of our environment requires cautious management of our foreshore and inter-tidal zone. Many inshore fish stocks and mammals prey on species such as yellow eyed mullet, which are vulnerable to the bulk removal of beach cast seaweed. We recommend urgent action to prevent loss of the near-shore marine environment to the cascading adverse effects that begin with vegetation clearance, nutrient run-off and sediment outfalls that cumulatively result in inert or dead zones Maori fisheries Deed of Settlement kaitiakitanga (Actions b, c and d) We recommend that the Minister gives effect to the ongoing obligations on the Crown, pursuant to the 1992 Maori fisheries Deed of Settlement and fisheries legislation, to provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua into fisheries and area management while having particular regard to kaitiakitanga. This will significantly improve the health and abundance of our fisheries and be beneficial for all New Zealanders. Integrated governance of fisheries (Actions d, f, g and i) We recommend ongoing support for local communities and iwi/hapu who have initiated rehabilitation projects that seek to restore the near-shore environment and the fisheries, so they can continue to serve the wider public s interests. April 2010 Hui Report July

100 We recommend non-commercial fishing interest groups continue to explore governance models to improve the long-term prospects of maintaining meaningful input and participation in fisheries management processes. This will benefit all sector groups and fisheries managers. We thank you for the opportunity for representatives of our organisations to meet with you in August. We look forward to explaining and discussing with you our alternative vision and strategies for the management of our fisheries and marine environment, as together we plan for Yours sincerely, Richard Baker New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council PO Box 93 Whangarei 0140 Mike Britton Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand PO Box 631, Wellington 6140 Cath Wallace and Barry Weeber Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand PO Box 11057, Wellington 6142 Jonathan Dick Guardians of Hawke Bay Fisheries Napier 4112 Hugh Barr Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand PO Box 745, Wellington 6140 Trish Rea option4 PO Box Parnell, Auckland 1151 Bunny McDiarmid Greenpeace New Zealand Aotearoa PB Wellesley Street, Auckland 1141 Geoff Rowling New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council PO Box 238 Raglan 3265 Paul Haddon PO Box 263 Kaikohe, Northland 0405 Jim Mikoz New Zealand Angling and Casting Association PO Box Rotorua 3045 Lloyd Hanson Marlborough Recreational Fishers Assoc. PO Box 384, Blenheim 7240 April 2010 Hui Report July

101 More Fish in the Water II Strategy - Appendix A Urgent and long-term actions identified in the documents Fisheries 2030 and an alternative collective view and the Sustainable strategies for more fish in the water. [Drafted in June 2009; updated in July 2009.] We recommend: Urgent actions: a. Specify management objectives to achieve a target biomass at a level of no less than half of the unfished biomass or similar proxy for key fish stocks with a clear rebuild timeframe to achieve this as soon as biologically possible. b. Strengthen s10 of the Fisheries Act to require the Minister to make precautionary decisions, to protect fish stocks and the aquatic environment, in the face of uncertain or inadequate information. This must be uni-directional in that TACs can only be decreased under these circumstances and not increased. The object of precaution must be specified as the fish stocks and associated and dependent species and the environment. c. Identify and protect areas of important and vulnerable fish habitat or marine biodiversity (e.g. nursery and spawning areas, traditional fishing areas and areas of high biodiversity) using an array of tools. These can include customary management, area based management, no-take zones, plus fishing method, season and catch restrictions as appropriate. Long-term actions: d. Develop policy and an effective management framework that ensures that any use of marine resources is done in an equitable and ecologically sustainable way. e. Reduce marine resource wastage and damage and increase promotion of added value from our fisheries (including targeted catches, gear selectivity, reduced discarding and more efficient processing). f. Strengthen community-led and regional public management led decision-making, guided by national standards built around measurable objectives, overview and evaluation. g. Undertake targeted research and information gathering (across all sectors), ensuring open access to data for stakeholder use. h. Eliminate ecologically destructive fishing techniques (e.g. dredging and bottom trawling) in favour of sustainable technologies. i. Ensure that the Ministry of Fisheries undertakes fisheries management and commissions fisheries research. j. Identify and minimise impacts on threatened or protected species. k. Develop and support strategic plans which include community planning processes for fisheries management, including measurable objectives and strategies aligned with our collective 2030 vision. l. Incorporate the effects of fishing on climate change and the effects of climate change on fishing into fisheries management. April 2010 Hui Report July

102 Appendix Six Joint Submission Draft North Island West Coast Finfish Fisheries Plan More fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto te wai Tracey Steel Ministry of Fisheries PO Box 1020 Wellington 16 October 2009 Dear Tracey Draft North Island West Coast Finfish Fisheries Plan Submission: Whilst the draft North Island West Coast (NIWC) Finfish Fisheries Plan contains worthwhile long-term goals and principles, it does not address the key issues of reversing low abundance in important inshore fisheries, and rebuilding those fish stocks. The NIWC Fisheries Plan must include a strategy, supported by measures and actions already available to the Minister in the Fisheries Act 1996, that can be immediately undertaken to restore and achieve sufficient abundance in important inshore fisheries to enable people to catch fish to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being. For these reasons: The priority objective for the NIWC Fisheries Plan must be to increase the health and abundance of important inshore NIWC fisheries; The first priority of the draft NIWC Fisheries Plan must be to develop and implement measures that will enable Snapper 8 be rebuilt to the biomass that will support maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) within five years (20 percent of B0, original biomass) and 40 percent of B0 within 10 years; The NIWC Fisheries Plan must outline how the SNA8 rebuild strategy will be assessed and analysed before being applied to other West Coast stocks; The NIWC Fisheries Plan must include strategies and measures that will enable important inshore food fisheries to be managed at 40 percent of BMSY; and The NIWC Fisheries Plan must include a list of prioritised stocks that need to be rebuilt. April 2010 Hui Report July

103 The joint submitters have analysed and discussed the draft NIWC Fisheries Plan and are disappointed that so much time and resources has been expended to produce an outcome that does not provide a roadmap to guide future management, nor is it designed to achieve abundance in important inshore fish stocks. Although the development of the Information Brief has been helpful to identify specific information on various West Coast fish stocks, which will be useful in the future, we are unable to support the draft NIWC Fisheries Plan in its present form. We look forward to being provided with the opportunity to have meaningful input into a NIWC Fisheries Plan that is designed to achieve "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai". We also acknowledge the input from all participants, including tangata whenua and other stakeholders, to reach some agreement, and that this process has been a useful exercise to get the various parties talking with each other. Accountability Whilst the draft NIWC Fisheries Plan is a useful starting point, it is more akin to a list of objectives or goals, already expressed by the sustainable utilisation purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996, with a suggested process to find measures, already available, to attain the objectives. The draft neither details nor explains how the effects of such actions, once implemented, will be measured against the objectives, the likely cost of implementing such measures, who will pay for the cost of implementation, and what further fisheries management steps or actions might follow as a consequence. For example, Goal 1 is that NIWC finfish fisheries are sustainable today and in the future. Objective C in support of that goal is catches maintain NIWC stocks at or above (BMSY). The Fisheries Act already empowers the Minister in the setting of the TAC and TACC to attain that goal. Rather than providing a clear direction for future management, the plan appears to be a document developed in response to a directive to the Ministry of Fisheries to produce an outcome. Arguably, a related concern arises from MFish s recent decision to centralise much of the fisheries management, research and science capacity to Wellington. This has the potential to compromise regional fisheries management initiatives. For example, once finalised, Auckland-based staff may need to be assigned to ensuring continued development and successful implementation of the plan. West Coast depletion Snapper 8 The draft NIWC Fisheries Plan does not provide any innovative measures to address the key issue of abundance. For more than twenty years the West Coast Snapper 8 (SNA8) stock has been and remains a severely depleted food fishery, some areas being worse than others. Despite two Ministerial decisions (the first initiated in 1998) the fishery is still below an acceptable abundance level, being at only half the minimum biomass level required by the Fisheries Act 1996 to produce the maximum sustainable yield. Given this historic failure it is either that the incentives within the the quota management system (QMS) framework do not provide sufficient tools to address serious depletion issues in important inshore fisheries, or the tools and mechanisms within the Act have not been applied as intended. April 2010 Hui Report July

104 Urgency is required in developing and implementing measures that will enable Snapper 8 to be rebuilt to the biomass that will support maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) within five years, and doubled to 40 percent of original biomass within 10 years. Management issues Low abundance Excessive commercial fishing reduced the SNA8 fishery to around five percent of its original biomass by the early 1980s. SNA8 remains at around 10 percent of original biomass and as such poses a potential environmental risk. The NIWC Fisheries Plan, once finalised, must remove this potential risk for the health and abundance of SNA8 and for all other inter-dependent fish stocks and marine life species. Excessive fishing Overfishing and deeming in SNA8 has been a contentious issue for many years. The rate of deeming in SNA8 has decreased in the last two years. This could be due to the increase in deemed value for West Coast snapper, or increased dumping of unwanted snapper, or possibly both. Without sufficient surveillance on the West Coast it is hard to measure the impact that increased deemed value penalties has had on commercial fishing behaviour. There is no mechanism in the draft NIWC Fisheries Plan that acknowledges the lost productivity due to this excessive commercial fishing, or any meaningful measures to ensure fishers have a balanced fishing portfolio to cover catch. Realistic management areas These issues are made more complex by an absence of effective fisheries management in such large areas. For example, SNA8 extends from Porirua Harbour (Wellington) to North Cape, and Flounder 1 extends from Tirua Point, northern Taranaki to Cape Runaway on the East Coast. There are huge variations in snapper abundance in Taranaki compared to the Kaipara and Manukau Harbours. During the 2005 SNA8 review commercial and some amateur fishers in Taranaki were advocating for an increase in total allowable commercial catch (TACC) and a reduction from 15 to 10 in the northern amateur daily bag limit because there was an abundance of snapper in their region. Northern amateur fishers advocated for a reduction in TACC and maintenance of the 15 daily bag limit because some harbour fishers could not catch snapper of sufficient size or in numbers to satisfy their social and cultural well-being. For these reasons the NIWC Fisheries Plan must provide options for the subdivision of Fisheries Management Area 8 (FMA8) with a view to balancing Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) to abundance, and to provide special status to the Kaipara Harbour. Inflated TACCs Over-inflated total allowable commercial catch (TACC) limits for a number of important species, such as flounder and mullet, means that the TACC neither constrains commercial fishing effort nor importantly produces sustainable commercial fishing. This ongoing, unconstrained fishing has had a major impact on many local communities, including both commercial and non-commercial fishing interests, that traditionally relied on these fisheries to sustain them. Important harbour fisheries, such as flounder and mullet, are not being managed at a level that will enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being. As a consequence sustenance fishers have been denied sufficient access to these food fisheries for more than twenty years. The NIWC Fisheries Plan must include TACC reductions to rebuild depleted fisheries to levels that provide sufficient abundance to enable people to provide for their wellbeing. April 2010 Hui Report July

105 Consultation, and input and participation s12(1) Fisheries Act 1996 A fisheries plan under section 11A of Part 3 of the Fisheries Act 1996, like the setting or varying of the total allowable catch (TAC), is a sustainability measure, Under section 12(1), before doing anything in relation to those measures, the Minister must (a) consult with Maori, environmental, commercial and recreational interests, and (b) provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua havig a non-commercial interest in the stock concerned, or an interest in the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned and have particular regard to kaitiakitanga. Environmental concerns There is lightweight consideration given to environmental issues in the draft NIWC Fisheries Plan. There is evidence of increasing sedimentation affecting all West Coast harbours, although the ongoing land-based riparian planting programme around Whaingaroa (Raglan) Harbour seems to have partially mitigated the adverse effects of land-based run-off. Adverse impacts of sedimentation on fish stocks, both direct (mortality) and indirect (habitat loss) are a serious issue on the West Coast. If information is uncertain when the Minister is considering a sustainability measure he/she must have particular regard to kaitiakitanga, consider inter-dependent species and the foreseeable needs of future generations in addition to taking a precautionary management approach. This is to ensure the sustainable utilisation of our fisheries and to protect the marine environment. Moreover, the NIWC Fisheries Plan must recognise the various sources of marine knowledge. In December 1999 the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, John Morgan Williams, published a document called Setting course for a sustainable future: The management of New Zealand's marine environment. In section 5, page 74, Adequacy of Environmental Information (5.2) Different kinds of information, he had this to say: -- However, in an information scarce environment like the marine environment, informal information will often be a resource that marine managers cannot afford to neglect or ignore. Much of this experience and knowledge is held by local kaumatua, kuia, fishers and communities but it is treated as anecdotal. The truth is there is little hard data available for fisheries management, as evidenced by the raft of assumptions used as inputs into stock models and the ongoing debate that follows those decisions. Kaipara Harbour There are serious environmental concerns about increasing sedimentation, eutrophication in the Kaipara Harbour, and the potential adverse effects on fish stocks, shellfish and marine environment as a consequence of the recent approval given to install underwater power turbines at the harbour entrance. It appears that almost all Snapper 8 stock spend a period of their formative years within the Kaipara Harbour. If true for snapper it is probable that other species also share this dependence on the Kaipara. It follows that given the depleted state of many of the West Coast fish stocks a precautionary fisheries management approach is required, to reduce adverse effects on the Kaipara fisheries and reduce environmental risk. April 2010 Hui Report July

106 In the report, A review of land-based effects on coastal fisheries and supporting biodiversity in New Zealand, Mark Morrison and others make the following statement: Any negative impacts on the Kaipara estuary's production of juvenile fish will cascade through into the much larger coastal ecosystem, ultimately affecting the abundance of fish several hundreds of kilometres away, and coastal snapper fisheries along the entire coast will be severely impacted. Such ecosystem linkages need to be explicitly incorporated into our management of estuarine and coastal ecosystems, including fisheries (Morrison et al. unpubl. Results). The authors acknowledge the connectivity of habitat and warn that, without accounting for such connectivity, we will always be limited in our ability to identify the important factors driving variation in harvested species abundance in a given area, and where management efforts might be best directed. This knowledge reveals the extent of the environmental risk taken by continually deferring remedial management actions for both fish and habitat within the Kaipara Harbour. The NIWC Fisheries Plan must address the issues identified in this report and introduce meaningful measures that mitigate adverse effects to ensure the rebuild and ongoing viability of our West Coast fisheries. 28N rights The existence and impact of section 28N rights are not acknowledged in the draft NIWC Fisheries Plan, yet these rights impose confounding incentives upon the quota management system which are particularly evident in Snapper 8. This omission needs to be rectified as 28N rights have an influence on how the fishery is utilised and managed. As of September 2, 2009 there were 933,300 Kgs of outstanding 28N rights in Snapper 8. In late 2007 two entities held around 96 percent of those rights. The draft NIWC Fisheries Plan fails to address and advise on resolution to this very apparent aberration to the incentive-based QMS. If fisheries have not been rebuilt sufficiently, since 1986, to enable an increase in the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) that would fulfill 28N claims then perhaps the rationale underpinning 28N rights has been mis-applied. Harvest strategy standards Harvest Strategy standards do not apply to any West Coast finfish fish stocks. If they are to be applied, stock data points will be required. However, it is a major concern that current stock size in relation to the biomass required to achieve maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) is only known for five of the 30 fish stocks discussed in the Information Brief. If reference points are absent then West Coast fish stocks need to be managed to achieve the sustainable utilisation purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996, by applying the environmental and information principles of the Act. In addition, ongoing monitoring must take place to assess whether those fish stocks are sufficiently abundant to enable people to catch fish to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being. If there insufficient abundance to enable people to catch fish to provide for their wellbeing then appropriate fisheries management measures must be applied to enable this to occur. Recreational only zones Since the election the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Phil Heatley, has promoted the National Party s policy of recreational-only fishing zones, to recognise recreational fishing needs. April 2010 Hui Report July

107 It is understood that some suggestions would exclude commercial fishing within five nautical miles from Port Waikato north to Baylys Beach. Such an extensive area would have a major impact on commercial fishers. Irrespective of the eventual size of these areas, the draft NIWC Fisheries Plan must state whether such no commercial fishing zones would be a fisheries management initiative or an area-based management tool, how these will be implemented over time and the relationship of no commercial fishing zones with existing area management tools such as mataitai, taiapure, rahui and marine reserves. Summary For more than a generation important West Coast food fisheries have not been managed to produce sustainable fishing and a healthy, abundant marine environment. Our West Coast fisheries are a taonga (treasure) that must be conserved so the marine environment can sustain itself and provide food for future generations of New Zealanders. To produce the dual benefit of reducing environmental risk, and providing sufficient abundance to enable people to catch fish for food, the NIWC Finfish Fisheries Plan must include measures to: Reduce the adverse effects of commercial fishing on fish stocks; and Increase and rebuild depleted fisheries to restore health and abundance. The non-commercial environmental and fishing interests of the Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association, option4 and the make the recommendations contained in this response to improve fisheries management so that we can all experience "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai". We appreciate the opportunity to have input into the draft NIWC Fisheries Plan and look forward to discussing the proposed plan in more detail with the Ministry of Fisheries. Yours sincerely Trish Rea On behalf of the option4 team PO Box Parnell, Auckland. Paul Haddon On behalf of the PO Box 263 Kaikohe Jim Mikoz Wellington Recreational Marine fishers Association Inc Newlands Wellington April 2010 Hui Report July

108 Appendix Seven Rahui Support Submission More fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai Randall Bess Spatial Allocations Manager Ministry of Fisheries PO Box 1020 Wellington Randall.bess@fish.govt.nz 15 December 2009 Dear Randall Submission in support of the proposed temporary prohibition on all fishing methods in Maunganui Bay (Deep Water Cove), Bay of Islands The, as the mid north iwi fisheries forum, supports the proposed temporary prohibition on all fishing methods, for a period of two years, in Maunganui Bay (Deep Water Cove), in the Bay of Islands. We tautoko [support] and congratulate Ngati Kuta and Patukeha ki Te Rawhiti in their effort to achieve "more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai". This temporary closure request is made under section 186A of the Fisheries Act 1996 and, if approved, will provide statutory support for a customary rahui placed over Maunganui Bay in March this year. Previous consultation carried out by Ngati Kuta and Patukeha ki Te Rawhiti indicates local, community support for the temporary closure initiative and the scuttling of the ex-frigate Canterbury within the Bay in They consider the prohibition will allow fisheries resources to establish on the Canterbury. There is already increased abundance in the area and a number of research programmes are underway to monitor the changes. The urges the Minister of Fisheries, Phil Heatley, to: Approve the s186a temporary closure application by Ngati Kuta and Patukeha ki Te Rawhiti; Provide resources for the ongoing effort to increase abundance of inshore fish stocks; and Support customary management tools as a means of achieving active, local management of important areas within the Bay of Islands and the expression of kaitiakitanga. In doing so the Minister will be giving recognition to the infinite relationship both Ngati Kuta and Patukeha ki Te Rawhiti have with Maunganui Bay and the wider area. April 2010 Hui Report July

109 Temporary closures Section 186 of the Fisheries Act 1996 allows for temporary closures and method restrictions to better recognise and provide for the use and management practices of tangata whenua in the exercise of their noncommercial fishing rights, by improving the availability and/or size of fish, aquatic life or seaweed, or recognising a customary fishing practice in the area concerned. These closures can apply for a maximum of two years and can be renewed after further consultation. Temporary measures apply to all fishermen - commercial, customary and amateurs. Currently there are three temporary closures in place, with two of those around the North Island. Members of the endorse the use of a Section 186 rahui for Maunganui Bay to rebuild fish stocks in this area at this time. Future management measures for the area will be considered during this rahui. Statutory obligations Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 (Settlement Deed) and Fisheries Act 1996 all recognise special rights and privileges tangata whenua have in relation to noncommercial fishing interests and marine area management. In addition to the Crown s obligations to tangata whenua as set out in section 10 of the Settlement Deed, there are others related to sections 33 and 36 of the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 and sections five, 12 and 21 of the Fisheries Act The Fisheries Act s purpose (s8) and principles in sections 9 (environmental) and 10 (information) underpin fisheries management in Aotearoa. Section five of the 1996 Act directs any person making decisions under the Fisheries Act to act in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992, and New Zealand s international obligations relating to fishing. Section 12 of the Fisheries Act requires the Minister to consult and provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in the fish stock or the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in a specific area. Section 12 also specifies that the Minister shall have particular regard to kaitiakitanga when making sustainability decisions. Section 21 of the Fisheries Act directs the Minister to allow for Maori customary non-commercial and recreational fishing interests when setting or varying the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) for a fish stock. Section 174 of the Fisheries Act sets out the objects of sections 175 to 185, which are to better provide for the recognition of rangatiratanga and of the right secured in relation to fisheries by Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 (Kaimoana Regulations) deal specifically with gazettal of rohe moana, kaitiaki, the issuing of customary permits and reporting, enabling kaitiaki to participate in sustainability measures and ability to institute mahinga mataitai. Kaitiakitanga Kaitiakitanga is the ethic of guardianship in accordance with tikanga Maori. It is guardianship in the widest sense and comes from Maori s knowledge and connectedness to the land, sea, and life within it. All fisheries sustainability decisions, marine protection tools and mechanisms are underpinned by kaitiakitanga in law. Through this tangata whenua have access to rahui, taiapure and mataitai. April 2010 Hui Report July

110 Kaitiakitanga is a tried and true way of nurturing resources in Aotearoa to ensure there is abundance and a healthy marine environment for future generations to enjoy. Kaitiakitanga is conservation without the confiscation usually associated with marine reserves. Application of kaitiakitanga principles and practical management measures in Maunganui Bay and other areas have the following advantages, it: Enables the Crown to fulfil its ongoing obligations to tangata whenua; Does not create new grievances, which could prove costly in the future; Enables management flexibility if a fish stock in a particular area needs to recover and multiply then a rahui (temporary ban) and/or a tapu (spiritual ban) can be imposed until abundance is restored; Is inclusive, by encouraging communities, both Maori and non-maori, to work together positively; Addresses the real issue of people s impact on the environment; Enables local solutions to local problems, without permanent area closures; Recognises the social and cultural values of local communities; and Is beneficial for the majority of New Zealanders with an interest in the area. Public education and awareness Widespread public support for kaitiakitanga will only come through people s understanding of the spiritual, cultural and legal basis of guardianship/stewardship. There is clearly a need for a public awareness campaign to explain customary area and fisheries management tools. The minimal, and quite rushed, approach to due process and consultation by the Ministry of Fisheries on this proposal is disappointing and should not be used as a model for the future. In the early 1990s the public lost their statutory right to manage local areas. At the time many people did not realise the lost potential brought about by changes to the Fisheries Act. Nowadays, the only way local communities can actively participate in meaningful local marine management is through the use of customary tools. When implemented with community support customary management tools can be successful in bridging gaps in cultural and social issues. It can also lead to greater understanding in the community because implementation of these mechanisms encourages the development and sustenance of an ongoing relationship between kaitiaki [guardians] and local, often non-maori, people. These are the sort of outcomes that should be supported by the Ministry. If an equal amount of effort was put into promoting customary management tools as there is in promoting marine reserves local communities would be empowered to actively work together in a constructive manner, without having to suffer the division commonly associated with marine reserve proposals. If this temporary closure application fails due to adverse public reaction the will expect the Minister and Ministry of Fisheries to engage in widespread educational initiatives that will increase awareness and understanding of both the Crown s ongoing statutory obligations to Maori regarding noncommercial fishing interests and the potential benefits of implementing customary management measures. Paul Haddon and Trish Rea On behalf of the April 2010 Hui Report July

111 April 2010 Hui Report July

112 Appendix Eight Joint T90 Letter of Endorsement More fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai RA Burch Napier 4110 Endorsement of T90 Trawl Net Innovations Dear Richard Nga mihi ki Rangi, nga mihi ki Papa, nga mihi hoki ki a ratou kua mene atu ra ki te Po. After your presentations to three hui, the mid north regional iwi fisheries forum confirms its support and appreciation of your team s effort to develop the T90 trawl net aboard the Nancy Glen II. The innovations under development, to reduce the mortality (death) of young fish while minimising the environmental impacts of trawl fishing, fit comfortably with our common goal of more fish in the water/kia maha atu nga ika ki roto i te wai. Participants in the include the commercial and non-commercial interests of Ngapuhi, Ngati Whatua, other northern iwi and hapu, environmental and fishing interest groups. Greenpeace, the Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand, Forest & Bird, option4 and NZ Sport Fishing representatives are regular contributors the forum. Together we advocate for more abundant fisheries and a healthier marine environment so that all New Zealanders can provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being. In August 2007 the Accord expressed its initial support for your team s effort to improve the sustainability of commercial fishing and restore abundance of coastal fisheries. Further encouragement was given following your updates at hui in November 2007 and June April 2010 Hui Report July