protecting maori fisheries assets for future generations

Download Protecting Maori Fisheries Assets for  Future Generations

Post on 01-Feb-2016

28 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Protecting Maori Fisheries Assets for Future Generations. Presentation to US Fisheries Tour Friday 17 March. Treaty of Waitangi Provisions. ARTICLE I. ARTICLE II. ARTICLE III. Crown Authority. Tino Rangatiratanga. Citizenship Rights. Authority of Tribes. Powers of Government. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

  • Protecting Maori Fisheries Assets for Future Generations

  • Presentation to US Fisheries Tour Friday 17 March

  • Treaty of Waitangi ProvisionsARTICLE IIARTICLE IARTICLE IIICrown AuthorityTino RangatiratangaCitizenship RightsPowers of GovernmentStatus of Maori IndividualsAuthority of Tribes

  • Waitangi Tribunal MuriwhenuaLegal Basis of Fisheries SettlementThere is at least an arguable case that the proposed actions (QMS) were in conflict with the statutory prescription and could have an effect contrary to those rightsTheir fisheries means their business and activity in fishing, including the places where they fished and their property rights in fishing1987High Court - Injunction

  • I am satisfied that there is a strong case that before 1840 Maori had a highly developed and controlled fishery over the whole of the coast of New Zealand, at least where they were living. That was divided into zones under the control and authority of hapu and tribes of the district. Each of these hapu and tribes had the dominion, perhaps the rangatiratanga, over those fisheries. Those fisheries had a commercial element and were not purely recreational or ceremonial or merely for the sustenance of the local dwellers.Nature of Right1987 High Court Justice Greig

  • Kaitiakitanga

  • Key Components of the Fisheries Settlement Commercial Quota, Cash and Subsidiaries Customary Use and Management rights Participation Management & Conservation of NZ fisheries

    Estimated value as at 2005 approximately $750 - $800 million dollars

  • Key Components of the Aquaculture Settlement 20% of all Marine Farming Space Established from 21 September 1992 and beyond

    There are no current estimates of the value of these assets at present

  • Primary Function & roles of Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries CommissionBack to MainProtecting the Assets

    Growing the AssetsGrowing CapacityAllocating the AssetsToWFC Getting Maori into the business and activity of fishing

  • Current Value of Fisheries AssetsFrom $275m to $700m without further Government contribution

    Asset Value

  • Who To?57 Iwi (traditional Tribes) agreed 1992-2004What?Quota sharesAFL income sharesCashWhen?When Iwi have systems (governance arrangements -constitutions, structures and register of members) and agreements between IwiWhat Progress?Have transferred some of each Iwis assets to 6 MIO by 30 Sept 2005Expect to have transferred some of each Iwis assets to 19 MIO by 31 March 2006Aiming to have transferred some of assets to all Iwi by March 2007Allocation

  • The Allocation ModelBack to Main

  • Inshore & DeepwaterContinental ShelfFishstocks are classified as:Inshore -less than 300mDeepwater - greater than 300mModels:Base ModelCorporate & TrustAllocate EverythingMix n Match

  • Managing the centrally retained assetsBack to Main

  • Te Kawai Taumata: The Electoral College

  • Benefits to IwiTotal Benefits to Iwi$18.0m

    Multiple Iwi Company Representatives $4.8m

    Top Six:Ngai Tahu $3.9mChathams$1.5mNgati Kahungunu$1.0mNgati Porou$0.8mNga Puhi$0.7mNgati Whatua$0.6m

    Disputed Quota $1.2m

  • Lease Rounds Summary 1990 -2000

  • Who fills the roles nowBack to MainTe Ohu Protecting the AssetsAFLGrowing AssetsTPWGrowing CapacityTe Ohu Allocating the AssetsTe OhuAdvance the interests of iwi primarily in fisheriesTWM Advance Maori interests in Freshwater Fisheries57 IwiGrowing Assets

  • Te Ohu as Corporate TrusteeTe Ohu Kai Moana Trust(Fisheries Trust)Takutai TrustMaori Commercial Aquaculture SettlementTrust(Aquaculture Trust)Te Ohu Kai MoanaTrustee Ltd

  • Presentation to US Fisheries Tour Friday 17 March

  • Marine ManagementInconsistent Decision MakingCustomary ProvisionsMataitai, Rahui and Taiapure (area management tools)Aquaculture Management AreasMarine FarmsRecreational RightsSub QMA Zoning and TAC re-allocations Marine Reservesspecial and representative areas (for sustainability or public good?)Coastal DevelopmentsMariners, pipelines, discharge

  • What are Iwi/Maori seeking?Protection of existing Treaty settlements, including the Fisheries & Aquaculture SettlementsNo prejudice to future settlementsRecognition of all customary and commercial rights including: Rights to benefit from fishing, marine farming, and other uses of marine resources including development rightsFull recognition of the role of Iwi /hapu in management & conservation (kaitiakitanga)

  • Current Marine Laws Inadequate for Maori Treaty Settlement Interests No clear overarching law Oceans Policy? Unclear:priorities between different uses and valuespurposes for applying management toolsprocesses to integrate new activitiesco-ordination between decision-makers Lack of justifiable approaches to address:public good vrs threats and risks to sustainabilitytreatment of property rightscosts and effectiveness of measureschanging circumstances

  • The Quota Management System1Total Allowable Catch (tonnes):set annually by MinisterTACC based on ITQ - generate ACEMaori customary fishingRecreational fishingCommercial fishing(TACC)

  • Fisheries rightsAre both communal and individual1Have spatial rights but not exclusivity note that fish occurrence is not evenIn perpetuityCan be changed annually for sustainability purposes without compensationAny other changes eg allocative require compensationSystem is very strongly user pays for mangement and research

  • Fisheries ActPurpose sustainable utilisationEnvironmental principlesInformation principles incl precautionaryDecisions taken by Minister but (generally) following consultationNo s 32, reviews only on process

  • Purpose?Risk management approach:Identify, analyse, evaluate risks (what is/not acceptable)Assess the effects of the new activity on existing activities. Then consider:What is the purpose or reason for the new activity? Is it to protect environmental sustainability? Or is it to allocate or reallocate new use rights?Can the effect of the new activity on existing activities be avoided? Can the effect of the new activity on existing activities be remedied or mitigated Assess the costs and benefits:Use the best tool at the least cost on existing usersAdaptive management:Establish monitoring and review programme

  • A Principled and Consistent ApproachIn the absence of an Oceans PolicyBe clear about the purpose or reason for decisionsApply a risk based adaptive management where sustainability is threatened andUse the best tool for the job at the least costApply a consistent principled approach for dealing with the effects of new developments on existing property right andDevelop incentives for negotiated solutions that:Avoid (explore other areas where less conflict with existing users)remedy or mitigate (explore conditions to enable activities to co-exist or explore compensation options consistent with the level of displacement)

  • Undue or Adverse Effects TestAcknowledges the existence of prior users and established property rightsRequires consideration of the effects or impacts of new activities on existing rightsDetermines conditions for decision making about new activitiesDetermines the outcome if effect or impact is undue

  • Best Method/Least CostBest MethodEstablish the extent of the risk(s) associated with any identified threats, acceptability of those risks and consider realistic optionsChoose the option(s) that would provide the least cost method of satisfactorily reducing any unacceptable risks Least cost means all current and future costs (to both Government and existing users) associated with the establishment, implementation, monitoring and review of the chosen option(s) including any transitional costs.

  • Maori Fisheries Who decides/actsMinister overall responsibilityCommercial - Iwi and other quota ownersNon-commercial - Whanau, hapu, Iwi

  • Customary Fishing Range of options Permits s 27(1) and (2)Temporary closuresTaiapureMataitaipromoted as a solution

  • Mataitai Current process flawed Poor informationPoor consultationPoor examination of needs and options to providePoor application of test

  • Mataitai Win- Lose? Lose Lose? or Win- Win ?Mataitai prohibits commercial fishing Iwi cant catch ACE for key speciesTest applies at Quota Management Area level cumulative effectLater applications will be refused

  • Maori Fisheries Must be win-winIwi have a key roleDecisions at QMA and iwi (and groups of Iwi) are responsible Can work with other quota owners to offer creative solutionsNeed to pro-actively work with hapu to ensure use range of options to get satisfactory provision across whole roheUse of pataka kai model under s 27(2) positive optionNo magic bullet - each iwi with its hapu will need to find solutions that work for them

  • Protecting Maori Fisheries Assets for Future Generations

  • Declaration of a Mataitai reserve

    (1) Subject to regulation 19, the Minister must, by notice in the Gazette, declare an area to be a mataitai reserve if satisfied that There is a special relationship between the tangata whenua making the application and the proposed mataitai reserve; andThe general aims of management specified in the application under regulation 17 are consistent with the sustainable management of the fishery to which the application relates; andThe proposed mataitai reserve must be an identified traditional fishing ground and is of a size appropriate to effective management by the tangata whenua; andThe Minister and the tangata whenua are able to agree on suitable conditions for the proposed mataitai reserve; andThe proposed mataitai reserve will no