The following are excerpts from the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights' Fact Sheet No.16 (Rev.1), The Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, and are reproduced here for the purpose
of introducing economic, social and cultural rights in general and
the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Under international human rights law (as well as in terms of its
application at the national level), civil and political rights have,
in many respects, received more attention, legal codification and
judicial interpretation, and have been instilled in public consciousness
to a far greater degree, than economic, social and cultural rights.
It is therefore sometimes wrongly presumed that only civil and political
rights (right to a fair trial, right to equality of treatment, right
to life, right to vote, right to be free from discrimination, etc.)
can be subject to violation, measures of redress and international
legal scrutiny. Economic, social and cultural rights are often viewed
as effectively "second-class rights"-unenforceable, non-justiciable,
only to be fulfilled "progressively" over time.
Such perspectives, however, overlook a postulate of the global human
rights system formulated as long ago as 1948 with the adoption of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely, that the indivisibility
and interdependence of civil and political rights and economic,
social and cultural rights are fundamental tenets of international
human rights law.
This point of view has been repeatedly reaffirmed, most recently
at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. One of the central
reaffirmations of the equal nature of these two sets of rights is
found in General Assembly resolution 32/130 of 16 December 1977,
which asserts (para. 1):
"(a) All human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible
and interdependent; equal attention and urgent consideration should
be given to the implementation, promotion and protection of both
civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights;
"(b) The full realisation of civil and political rights without
the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights is impossible;
the achievement of lasting progress in the implementation of human
rights is dependent upon sound and effective national and international
policies of economic and social development, as recognised by the
Proclamation of Teheran of 1968.
Economic, social and cultural rights are fully recognised by the
international community and throughout international human rights
law. Although these rights have received less attention than civil
and political rights, far more serious consideration than ever before
is currently being devoted to them. The question is not whether
these rights are basic human rights, but rather what entitlements
they imply and the legal nature of the obligations of States to
The following quote from the Maastricht Guidelines on Violations
of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights further illustrates the
point Maastricht, 22-26 January 1997.
"Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a trend in all
regions of the world to reduce the role of the state and to rely
on the market to resolve problems of human welfare, often in response
to conditions generated by international and national financial
markets and institutions and in an effort to attract investments
from the multinational enterprises whose wealth and power exceed
that of many states. It is no longer taken for granted that the
realisation of economic, social and cultural rights depends significantly
on action by the state, although, as a matter of international law,
the state remains ultimately responsible for guaranteeing the realisation
of these rights. While the challenge of addressing violations of
economic, social and cultural rights is rendered more complicated
by these trends, it is more urgent than ever to take these rights
seriously and, therefore, to deal with the accountability of governments
for failure to meet their obligations in this area.
It is now undisputed that all human rights are indivisible, interdependent,
interrelated and of equal importance for human dignity. Therefore,
states are as responsible for violations of economic, social and
cultural rights as they are for violations of civil and political
Appendices 3 AND 4 are attached as discussion documents on additional
funding mechanisms. These mechanisms will not become the policy
of option4 unless a secure priority right and area right are enshrined
in legislation first. These funding mechanisms will likely fail
unless the ideas are widely supported. Another public consultation
round would be required to gauge the level of support for this level
of public involvement. Appendices 3 and 4 are not designed to be
a total funding package but more a list of ideas which could supplement
the income of a crown-funded independent recreational and sustenance
Towards an option4.co.nz submission
Funding by the provision of services.
The recreational sector requires funding to establish a structure
to better represent itself and take a more responsible and responsive
role in fisheries management. An obvious option is for the Government
to fund recreational organisations. We recognise that the Government
may not provide all funding.
The fisher public could provide some voluntary funding to support
this structure. As stated in the founding principle of option4.co.nz,
this funding must not be by licensing or other compulsory method.
We believe the fisher public would provide a greater level of funding
if they believed recreational fishing organisations provided services
that were of value to them. We are faced with a chicken and egg
situation. Most recreational groups do not have the funds to provide
a range of fisheries management services which their members value,
and most recreational fishers will not provide funds because they
can see little value in the services being provided.
We therefore propose that Government provide funding to the recreational
sector where they believe that a recreational body can provide fisheries
management services which is more efficient and effective than the
current MFish approach. This approach is in line with the Governments©ˆ
policy of devolution of services from the Crown where efficiency
and effectiveness would improve, and the function is not seen as
core Crown responsibility. The devolution of the Quota Registry
services is a recent example where management activity devolved
from the Crown to the fishing industry (ie FISHSERV).
It is naive to think that just because we believe a service is a
priority, and we should provide it, that the Government will fund
it. We would jointly need to define the roles and functions that
could be performed by recreational fishing organisations, and demonstrate
that out -sourcing such services would (in the long term at least)
create more efficient and cost effective management than the current
provision of services by the Ministry. Where functions are delegated
from the Minister (or the Chief Executive of the Ministry) the funding
should come from Government. The historical budget for these activities
should not necessarily be the only basis for determining funding.
Some Ministry functions have had reducing budgets over the last
15 years. Current funding is probably below effective operating
levels. For these functions, a zero-based budgeting process should
be used to determine the true costs and funding level for the performance
levels the Ministry sets.
We recognise that the services to be devolved would be a matter
of negotiation between the Minister (on behalf of the national interest),
the Ministry and the recreational sector. We also recognise that
devolution will not occur overnight. A few functions could be devolved
quickly, others would take five or more years of preparation and
some functions would never be devolved. Some recreational fisheries
may be able to provide services faster than others. Recreational
groups in some fisheries may never have the capability or desire
to undertake service devolved from Government.
What services could be devolved?
There are a range of potential services which could be devolved
A. Management Planning
A management plan for a fishery (for example the recreational scallop
fishery) could be developed to guide fisheries management over a
period of say five years. The advantage of the plan would be:
- That wide consultation managed by the recreational sector should
provide a better management regime than one developed by bureaucrats.
For example, effective consultation should ensure better compliance
by recreational fishers, and therefore lower enforcement costs,
and less conflict between the Minister and recreational fishers.
- A plan would give other sectors more confidence in management.
For example, the commercial sector may consider an effective plan
provides a more predictable future for them.
- The Plan would provide a vehicle for other users of the resource,
most notably the Customary Maori and Commercial sectors, to have
a statutory framework within which to input into management processes
which may impinge on their activity and rights.
B. Management Advice
The recreational sector could be contracted to provide advice to
the Minister and Ministry on fisheries issues. For example, the
impact of TAC changes to the recreational sector. It may be that
the best way this could be achieved is through a national advisory
committee to the Minister.
C. Consultation services
The Minister may fund recreational input on a range of issues. For
example, the impact of aquaculture policy, relevant commercial fisheries
policy, or customary fisheries issues. We know that there are many
fishers who see this as an obviously service that we could provide.
Balanced against this is a history of the NZRFC seeking to achieve
this role without success. One point is obvious; to successfully
provide this service we would need much more efficient and effective
consultation processes than have occurred historically.
D. Data collection
Effective decision making in part hangs on the quality of data provided.
Recreational fishing organisations may be able to provide cost effective
data bases for use by fisheries policy and research staff. One option
is to change the role of the HFOs to involve a data collection approach
similar to that provided by the Ministries Fisheries Observer programme
for the commercial fishery.
The education role would be focused on informing the fisher public
of the fisheries controls, the value of fisheries management, and
the role individuals and groups play in better fisheries management.
The education role would have benefits in many of the functions
outlined above. For example, the fisheries planning process and
the related consultation is one example where recreational groups
would undertake an education role.
We believe that compliance with fisheries management controls will
be enhanced by better communication of the controls and their value
to recreational fishers. Further, we believe that compliance costs
would be reduced in fisheries if fisher peers encourage other fishers
to comply rather than see education and enforcement as the Ministrys©ˆ
We believe the HFO network could be managed by recreational fisher
organisations. The HFO role at the moment is largely one of educating
the fisher public and reporting to the Ministry on illegal activity.
Many fishers believe the role is only one of enforcement and prosecution,
but this is not the case. We believe the HFO role could be redefined
to one of education and data collection (on recreational catches
and effort, fish length recording). The only role of enforcement
would be to provide information to the Ministry about observed illegal
activity. What subsequent action was taken would be up to the Ministry,
and would not be an HFO function.
These functions would require considerable management skills to
develop and maintain, and would require a change in public attitudes.
However, there are examples of the successful operation of such
services outside of the Ministry. For example, an independent contractor
is undertaking a national marine recreational survey for the Ministry
involving boat ramp surveys and fisher diaries.
What precedent is there for recreational fishers managing
Two examples are given to illustrate recreational fishing organisations
ability to manage devolved management functions:
1. New Zealand Fish and Game Council
The New Zealand Fish and Game Council has delegated powers to:
- Develop policies and plans for the management of sports fish
- Advise the Minister on issues related to sports fish and game.
- To participate with the Director General and other interested
parties in the development of research programmes promoting the
management of sports fish and game.
- To advocate on behalf of the New Zealand Fish and Game Councils©ˆ
members, policies and fish and game habitats.
- To assess and monitor fish and game populations and the users
of that resource.
- To promote and educate the benefits of recreational based sports
fish and game and the compliance of users with management initiatives
- To liaise, represent and advocate on behalf of the resource
and its users appropriate management of the resource through the
statutory planning and other processes.
There are obvious differences between the freshwater/acclimatisation
environment and marine recreational fisheries. However, the Councils©ˆ
function and activities demonstrates that management roles have
been effectively delegated from the Crown to recreational groups,
and that recreational fisheries management can be carried out effectively
by non-government agencies.
2. NZU SCUBA cylinder testing
In 1983 the Department of Labour appointed New Zealand Underwater
(and other certification bodies) responsibility for the training,
auditing and certification of SCUBA cylinder hydrostatic testing
and inspection. Since that time the NZU has built and maintained
a professional service that not only meets the Labour Department
standards but also competes against private sector companies providing
the same service. The NZU have achieved market dominance in a competitive
market place in the provision of services; NZU certified hydrostat
facilities test or inspect 40,000 of the 56,000 SCUBA cylinders
There is another group of activities (other than devolved services)
which demonstrate the recreational sectors ability to organise and
undertake fisheries management roles. These are the voluntary activities
- The New Zealand Big Game Fish Councils national tag and release
programme for game fish started by John Chibnall in the 1970s.
- The protect a beach project where by concerned members of the
public undertake surveys to monitor shellfish abundance. For example
the Cheltenham Beach group has trained more than 350 people in
Critics of these recreational activities may claim the recreational
sector would likely act as a vested interest group only interested
in furthering their own benefits. However, there are examples which
demonstrate this is not the case. One example is the initiative
by Paul Barnes and the NZRFC that led to the introduction of a 27cm
minimum fish size for snapper in spite of the minimum snapper size
remaining at 25 cm for the commercial sector. The 27cm limit was
introduced without opposition from the recreational sector and remains
respected and adhered to.
What functions could be devolved in the short term?
Once the marine recreational fishing right is defined in legislation,
two functions could be devolved from the Ministry to recreational
- Consultation. We believe fisher organisations
could provide a more effective and efficient service than the
Ministry on consultation required by the Crown. By use of the
web site option4.co.nz, as well as attendance at over 30 meetings
to discuss Soundings, we believe we have demonstrated a more effective
consultation structure than the Ministry. This has been achieved
in spite of the Ministry having some two years to plan its communication
- Management Planning. option4 believes that
there is sufficient skill within the recreational sector to undertake
a management planning role for recreational fisheries management.
We are aware that several industry quota holding organisations
are currently developing the management planning role in deepwater
and inshore fisheries.
Structure should be determined once the Recreational Right is defined.
Even so there are some preliminary principles that should be considered.
One core function of the recreational body must be effective communication
and consultation with the recreational fishers and transparent decision
making. option4.co.nz strongly believe that this role is a Government
responsibility, however the delivery of the function should be delegated
to recreational fisher organisations.
We do not support a structure focused on national issues and certainly
not one that comprises groups of small harbour or beach action groups.
If services were tendered out a significant change in recreational
fisheries structure would be required. The structure would need
to be based on providing a service to standards and specifications
set by Government (MFish). It is unlikely that the current club
structure would be a suitable legal entity to act as a service provider.
It would seem that a regional structure based on the provision of
valued services provides the best solution.
Other reasons for supporting a regional structure are:
- Under the QMS fisheries are managed on Fisheries Management
areas. Although recreational fisheries are not managed under the
QMS, management decisions are made by the Minister on this basis.
- The structure would need to reflect the MFish structure. We
understand the Ministry is currently reorganising to decentralise
management decisions to fishery management area functions and
- The commercial sector is well down the track of decentralising
from the Fishing Industry Board/SeaFIC to regional Quota Management
The organisation of the
structure should be based on the regional or fishery bodies functions/activities.
The regional management organisations should have a small executive
and an overriding board setting the strategy. Who should fund this
is a mute point. If a lean executive structure is in place, funding
will be required for specialist skills such as legal services. The
cost of this should not be underestimated particularly with the
tendency of other sectors to revert to the Courts to settle their
grievances. For example, the Coromandel Scallop dispute, and Maori
quota allocation issues.
There should be a national structure. For example, the provision
of advice to the Minister would require such a structure. The national
structure should be kept lean.
A national organisation could comprise members of regional organisations
or an organisation drawn independently of these structures. There
is at least one guiding principle to determine what basis the national
organisation should be chosen on. Structure and staff should be
based on what is the most efficient and effective required for the
service the national function provides.
If the Government delegates management functions to the regional
fisheries bodies the Ministry would set performance standards and
specifications for the work to be carried out. The Ministrys©ˆ
role would include an audit function to ensure Government funded
activities are carried out effectively and efficiently.
The Government should also manage the recreational fisheries research
contracts to ensure the work is carried out independently by competent
researchers. Research providers could gather their own data and/or
use databases collected by recreational organisations. Deciding
what the research priorities are and the specific projects to be
undertaken should be a joint decision between recreational organisations
and the Minister,
not the current approach of the Ministry consulting with stakeholders
and a decision made solely by the Minister.
Effective legal structures will need to be developed and processes
introduced for effective consultation and democratic decision making.
Recent research3 surveying more than 600 active marine fishers throughout
New Zealand has shown that there is a significant number (but not
a majority) of recreational fishers who support the concept of self-management4.
The majority of recreational fishers in the survey stated they would
not take an active role in assisting with self-management initiatives.
However, the levels of support by those who would be prepared to
assist are probably sufficient to establish and service regional
Two levels of management regimes should be considered. Both regimes
could operate in parallel, however option4.co.nz may consider only
one of these regimes is appropriate.
Management on a regional or fishery basis
Given that the necessary structures could develop in time, provision
should be made for regional organisations where appropriate, and
in partnership with the Ministry, to determine the fisheries management
controls in their areas. Guidelines would need to be developed to
limit the extent of the controls.
For example, to ensure controls were harmonious within an area.
Management initiatives could not be introduced without widespread
effective consultation and transparent decision making.
However, as is the current situation, controls would be allowed
to vary between regions (eg bag limits). Guidelines for other purposes
would be needed. For example, to ensure enhancement initiatives
(eg increasing the recreational minimum fish size above that for
other sectors) benefit those who implement short to medium term
constraints for long term gains.
Where services were devolved
to recreational bodies the role of the Ministry would be:
- Advice to the Minister on management initiatives proposed by
recreational fisheries management organisations.
- An audit of the performance of functions delegated to the recreational
- Advice to the Minister on the national interest.
- Management of research and advice and other assistance to manage
- Provision of regulations to manage the fishery.
- Enforcement and policing of the recreational fishery.
Management on a Special Interest fishery basis
In addition to a regional management role provision could also be
made for management by recreational organisations in special areas
of high recreational significance. An example may be fisheries where
commercial take is prohibited (for example most intertidal shellfish
areas, or the billfish fishery).
This approach is already in place for Customary Maori management
under the Mataitai management process. By-laws can be promulgated
under the Mataitai reserves related to:
- species that can be taken;
- quantities of each species that can be taken;
- size limits related to the species to be taken;
- the method by which each species can be taken;
- area or areas in which each species can be taken; and
- any other matters the Tangata Kaitiaki/Tiaki considers necessary
for the sustainable management of fisheries resources.
Generally there is no commercial fishing within Maitaitai reserves.
The Tangata Kaitiaki/Tiaki has the right to promulgate controls
by passing by-laws. The Ministrys©ˆ compliance officers
would enforce these by laws. The Minister could intervene where
the actions of the Tangata Kaitiaki/Tiaki are affecting the sustainability
of the fishery in the management area.6
We believe the same management opportunities should be provided
to recreational fisheries as the management rights given to tangata
whenua. Management of these areas would need to recognise and foster
a co-management role with tangata whenua.
The Ministries role in such fisheries would be:
- Advice to the Minister on management initiatives proposed by
recreational fisheries management organisations.
- An audit role of functions delegated to the recreational sector
on behalf of the Minister.
- Advice to the Minister on the national interest.
- Provision of research, and other assistance to manage the fishery.
- Enforcement and policing of the recreational fishery.
Possible Regional Structure and funding for Recreational
The redefinition of the Recreational Right will provide an opportunity
to restructure the way recreational fishers are represented and
to widen the public base of support and participation in marine
The Government is prepared to discuss fisheries management structures
that range from minor tinkering by leaving management with the Ministry
of Fisheries, to a major overhaul offering recreational self management
and stakeholder 'control'.
There are some good reasons for leaving management with
- The fishery is a public resource.
- As such it is the Governments©ˆ responsibility to
ensure this resource is managed in a way that maximises the benefits
for all New Zealanders.
- The Ministry has the experience (and baggage) of working with
the current legislation and managing fisheries.
- The Minister would have the authority to take our redefined
recreational right and make it work for us.
- Ministerial decision making is more clear cut and possibly quicker
than consensus decision making.
- If the stakes get high it is government that will be liable
to challenges through the courts.
There are many species (deep water and middle depths) that will
be managed by the Ministry under any structure. If they were to
manage all species then there may be no need to change how recreational
fishers participate and are represented in management.
However, for some key species recreational fishers may want to take
more control of management and accept more responsibility. Recreational
fishers may choose different levels of involvement depending on
the size of benefits that better management could deliver. Key species
would included snapper kahawai, kingfish, blue cod, crayfish and
paua in some regions.
One of the problems with finding fishers to get involved in fisheries
management is the lack of a training ground.
It would be great to have a way of getting more people interested
and involved in management issues at a level they feel comfortable
Then have a structure that would help develop the next generation
The biggest thing missing in the current recreational fishing organisations
is the ability to communicate to the wider public and give them
the opportunity to contribute. This is something option4.co.nz has
done exceptionally well in a short time.
A Web Based Structure
The Internet may not be universally accessible yet. There are libraries,
schools, cafes or your mate's place if people aren't on the web
at home. Avoiding postal services and paper trails is the way of
People that are interested in fishing are the right people to talk
to about other marine management issues and this structure may be
used as the forum for public discussion on the use and abuse of
the marine environment. Briefly this structure could have levels
If a new structure was required it should be built from the bottom
up rather than the top down and be based on a web site as the main
access point. Information on the public site should be informative
and current, short and well written.The aim is to get people interested
while avoiding the Ministry standard approach of long meetings,
piles of reading, often irrelevant issues and travelling a long
way.The web site would be encourage those that felt they could contribute
to join the team.
To access the next level on the web site you sign up to be part
of a district team giving you access to more detailed information
and discussion on marine issues.You will be asked directly to comment
via email on work in progress in your district or region and will
be able to have input into national issues.Links and archives will
help those that want to research a topic.Team members would have
to fill out an application form that would include the conditions
of membership. They would be able to 'unsubscribe' at any time.
People with some experience and enthusiasm as team members may be
appointed to coordinate issues and consultation in their district.
They could help answer questions and be responsible for compiling
ideas and submissions from his/her team members. Like HFOs, there
would be training and support provided, even an honorarium for regular
contributors.They would also at as a link to local fishing or boating
clubs and promote team membership in the district.
Part or full time job for someone with skills in people management
and marine resource management.They would be responsible for communicating
with districts, analysing and reporting on feedback from that region
and new issues, writing material for the web site, negotiating with
Regional Authority, MFish, DOC etc. and reporting to a regional
Similar to Regional Conservation Boards. Elected by public and/or
team members. Focus on fisheries management and marine issues in
that region. Would not have membership from other sector groups
but may in turn have representatives in multi-sector Fisheries Assessment
Working Groups etc. Would have financial and audit control for the
region. This would be the key Public decision making body that would
be responsible for policy decisions and applications to the Minister
for changes to regulations.
The most efficient way to run a national web site and to approach
national sponsors is though a national executive. Chairperson and
members could be elected from regional boards with some positions
for public nomination and paid staff.
To be run well a new structure would need adequate funding. (Maori
have a priority right for customary fishing and area rights to Taiapure
and Mataitai but progress is painfully slow as long as they wait
for the Crown or MFish to deliver on those rights. It is the groups
like Ngai Tahu that are well resourced and pro-active that are making
Once there is a clear idea of how much responsibility recreational
fishers are prepared to take and an agreed structure is proposed
then we can work out a budget. Until there are clear objectives,
agreed structure and a budget we can't know what level of funding
we need. But we can discuss where it might come from.
It is the Government that is responsible for the sustainable use
of our fisheries. It is not "core business" for commercial
fishers, whose job is to catch fish and make a profit. And it is
not the "core business" of recreational and subsistence
fishers who get out on the water for relaxation and to catch food.
Our fisheries are a public resource and they should be managed for
the maximum public good. The Government should pay for the public's
share of management cost and structure. The Government take a considerable
share of GDP in taxes in order to manage the country. If they want
to involve more of us in fisheries management that's fine but it
will require funds from central government.
B. Road Tax on Boat Petrol
For decades the Government has taken a windfall gain by charging
Road Tax on petrol that is used in boats. It must add up to hundreds
of millions of dollars over the years that boaties have put into
the consolidated fund.
It wouldn't be as universal because land based fishers and owners
of diesel powered boats would not contribute but we could live with
that because no one is paying more than at present.
C. Advertising and Promotions
If the web site is successful some money could be raised through
selling advertising or running promotions. But commercial web sites
can distract visitors with too many banners trying to attract the
D. Combined Funding Approach
One way to put together a package where every one benefits could
1. X% Government Funding. Because they still have a responsibility
to ensure management in the public interest. They benefit because
they don't pay it all but are still seen as a meeting their share.
Most Government funding would be used to respond to government research
and management issues.
2. Y% Sponsorship and Grants. The organisation could find a major
sponsor who would sign up for 3 to 5 years, with right of renewal.
They get naming rights to some high profile projects such as promotional
events, publications, advertising and possibly fishery enhancement.
A major sponsor benefits from association with the positive aspects
of marine management.The organisation gets financial and possibly
logistic support (imagine Ihug as major sponsor). A range of other
sponsors may be attracted to contribute at a more affordable level.The
Ministry of Fisheries may have to take on the role of major sponsor
for the first 5 years just to get the ball rolling. Grants could
also be obtained from Lotteries Commission or Bank Trusts for specific
3. Z% Membership Funding. Set up so that the value of membership
is greater than the cost to join.There could be lucky draws of sponsors
product, win fishing trips with supporting charter skippers and
instead of taxing fishing gear, offer a discount to all members
at participating sports goods stores (conditions apply so it works
for everyone). Members could carry a membership card that shows
they have current membership (like RFC currently do) as proof of
Members get a free sticker for boat or car window (may be a sponsor©ˆs
T shirt as well) to demonstrate their support. People instantly
see the value of joining. Endorsements from well known fishers,
sports or media people could be useful.
And the organisation gets the name and address of members. A data
base of fishers also has value for research and management purposes.
Most of the funds raised through membership would go toward resolving
management issues that also have benefit to members and the public.
Foundation membership would be available to individuals and companies
that have the foresight to invest in the concept of recreational
fisheries management. All funds from foundation members (say $500
each) would go into a reserve fund. This would provide the capital
asset to ensure long term financial security. Interest earned could
be used for normal operations. Foundation Members could have the
option of placing their names on a "tasteful" banner on
the web page (names would rotate through).