MŌ Te Ohu - About Te Ohu

24 November 2000


To all Maori concerned with Aquaculture Reform


Tena koutou

AQUACULTURE - JOIN THE DISCUSSION

1. Overview

The enclosed draft Commission submission to the Crown, "Te Ohu Kai Moana: Aquaculture - Join the Discussion" sets out the Commission's preliminary stance on the issues raised in the current aquaculture reform consultation process.

The Commission has identified aquaculture as one of its key priority issues for the coming year. One key element of our activity will be input into aquaculture reform. The Commission and Maori are uniquely placed to be involved in any aquaculture reform because we have interests in customary fishing, commercial fishing and aquaculture.

It has long been widely recognised by all parties that there is an urgent need for reform of the laws and practice associated with aquaculture. Reform has been 'on the books' since the late 1980s, and was most recently raised by industry with the Independent Reviewer of fisheries management in 1998, who recommended substantive changes. Ministers resolved, however, to consult all interested stakeholders before making any decisions.

In August 2000 Mfish & MfE issued the discussion document on aquaculture reform, Aquaculture - Join the Discussion, calling for submissions to be made by stakeholders by 30 October 2000. The substance of the proposed reforms is in line with the Independent Reviewer's recommendations. Mfish stated that 30 October was the target date for submissions and encouraged interested parties to advise whether they intend making submissions should they be delayed beyond that deadline. Mfish has also agreed to provide a number of hui for Maori between 15 November and 15 December to discuss both aquaculture and recreational 'rights' reforms. They have advised that Maori can subsequently make submissions that will be taken into account by Ministers in March 2001.

Te Ohu Kai Moana management indicated to Crown officials that we will be making a submission but, in keeping with major reforms, this submission will be circulated to Iwi for their comment prior to final lodging. We have also been working with SeaFIC and keeping in contact with aquacultural representatives, so are aware of their concerns and proposals.

Our draft submission is enclosed for your urgent attention. Your Iwi organisation will already have received the discussion document but in the event that one has not arrived please contact the Commission immediately so that a copy can be forwarded to you without delay.

We require your written comments at this office by 8 December 2000.


2. The Issues

There is universal agreement in the industry on the key issues identified for reform in the document. They are:

  • Uncertainty of existing aquaculture harvest rights;
  • Overlapping responsibility for managing environmental effects of aquaculture;
  • Poor integration with wild fisheries management; and
  • Outdated management of land-based aquaculture activity.

The paper sets out two broad approaches for management of aquaculture:

Approach One: Under a dual regime - Fisheries Act & Resource Management Act;

Approach Two: Solely under the Resource Management Act.

Te Ohu Kai Moana considers that the most effective approach is to have a dual regime [Approach One] with clarity of roles but co-operation in processes as this will have benefits for both aquaculture and wider fisheries management. Consequently our stance in summary is:

  • A new aquaculture harvest right [aqua-permit] be established under the Fisheries Act and all existing approvals be transferred into the new regime;

  • Rights to water space be granted by Regional Councils following consideration of all effects of aquaculture be managed under the Resource Management Act ;

  • Keep separate RMA and FA96 application processes but with joint hearings and concurrent decision-making. This would improve the integration between coastal planning, marine farming and fishing at both the planning level and individual consents. In this context a refined mechanism should be provided under the Fisheries Act that requires new applicants for marine farms to avoid remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of their proposed operation on existing fishers and the fishery;

  • The management of land-based aquaculture is streamlined by repealing the Freshwater Fish Farming Regulations 1983; the dual regime approach would provide a harvest right under the FA and require an RMA consent for environmental effects [principally water extraction and discharge].

A key feature of better integration outlined above is that the mechanism would provide a process for establishing the level of impact of any changes in allocation of TAC between different rights holders. It could also be used when a marine reserve proposal is being imposed over areas that are extensively fished. A key aspect of our proposal is that the assessment of whether the developer has adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated adverse effects on fishers will be able to be reviewed - both in process and substance. Current legislation does not provide for review.

3. Other matters

Given the time delay in addressing this reform, it is disappointing that a range of substantive issues are not adequately dealt with in the reform proposals, including:

  • The Maori claim to the foreshore and seabed;

  • How to appropriately reconcile Maori interests in customary fisheries, commercial wild catch and aquaculture;

  • Consistency of practice/ methodologies for aquaculture management across the country;

  • How to deal with interdependent policy decisions that cannot be made or enforced by any single decision-maker;

  • Better methods than "first in - first served" allocation of coastal space;

  • How to appropriately include enhanced fisheries management (both seabed and wild)

Please contact me at this office if there are matters you wish to discuss.


Kia ora

Craig Lawson
General Manager, Policy