Home - option4.co.nz The more people we can get involved in these issues the better Fishing in New Zealand

YES I want to be
kept informed
Change existing options

Promote option4

Please help option4



option4 Soundings Submission Appendices

Soundings Submission Appendices

option4 draft


Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4

Appendix 1

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 realise them.


Appendix 2

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 rights."

Appendix 3

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 management organisation.

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 including:

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

E.    Education
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 job.

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 devolved services?
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 and game.
  • 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 and controls.
  • 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 in use.2

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 include:

  • 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 survey techniques.

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 fishing organisations.

  1. 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 strategy.
  2. 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 structures.
  • The commercial sector is well down the track of decentralising from the Fishing Industry Board/SeaFIC to regional Quota Management Associations.

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 management functions.5

Management Regimes
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 sector.
  • Advice to the Minister on the national interest.
  • Management of research and advice and other assistance to manage the fishery
  • 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.


Appendix 4

Possible Regional Structure and funding for Recreational Fishers
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 issues.

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 Ministry:

  • 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 with.
Then have a structure that would help develop the next generation of leaders.

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 the future.

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 as follows:

The Public
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.

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.

District Coordinator
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.

Regional Coordinator
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 board.

Regional Board
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.

National Executive
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 it happen.)

Funding Ideas
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.

A.  Government
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 eye.

D. Combined Funding Approach
One way to put together a package where every one benefits could be:

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 projects.

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 entitlement.
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 Fund
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).



site designed by axys © 2003 option4. All rights reserved.