Part 2: Justification for funding research as a conservation service

• Conservation services research projects and application of the cost recovery framework
• Commercial fishing’s effect on the black petrel
• Explicit assurance for the Minister of Fisheries

Conservation services research projects and application of the cost recovery framework

2.1
In our 2002 report, we concluded that DOC should justify the relationship between a research project and the effect of commercial fishing on a protected species, and the levy associated with the research.

2.2
We also identified a need for DOC to demonstrate to stakeholders, in all cases, that the cost recovery framework had been applied to the proposed research projects, and that the rationale for the apportionment of costs to the industry was fully justified.

What progress has been made in implementing our recommendations?

2.3
DOC has introduced a method to identify proposed research projects in consultation with interested parties. DOC proposes research projects after:

• applying the policies (developed in consultation with interested parties) and the prioritisation methodology contained in the Conservation Services Programme’s draft Strategic Plan 2005-10; and
• analysing the relevant international literature.

2.4
The method developed by DOC has already been used to identify the species that ought to take priority in research projects. The priority species are listed in the Conservation Services Programme’s draft strategic plan.

2.5
The Conservation Services Programme’s draft Research Plan 2005-10 further describes the framework for prioritising the research and classifies the proposed research projects into relevant groups.

2.6
The Conservation Services Programme’s annual plan is intended to put into operation the prioritised research projects by selecting, according to the priority, the number of research projects to be undertaken for the year the annual plan covers. The Conservation Services Programme’s Annual Plan 2004-05 included a table of project costs (including costs to the fishing industry) and the applicable cost recovery rule.

2.7
DOC now has in place policies relating to:

• mandate and focus (to clarify the relevant legislative mandate and how DOC intends to apply it);
• species prioritisation (the criteria that DOC applies when prioritising species for proposed research);
• policy guidance specific to each research group (to provide further information on how DOC intends to focus its research); and
• cost recovery and administration (to clarify the meaning of the Fisheries (Cost Recovery) Rules 2001³ and how DOC will apply them).

2.8
DOC will amend future annual plans of the Conservation Services Programme, to ensure that a specific link is made between a research project and the effect of fishing on the species being researched.

2.9
DOC’s work in this area remains contentious. SeaFIC believes that some of the policies are vague, and is concerned that DOC has not defined what constitutes a “public interest”. The costs of conservation services in the “general public interest” cannot be recovered from the fishing industry.⁴

2.10
However, SeaFIC is optimistic that its concerns will be addressed, as there is goodwill between all parties.

Our conclusions

2.11
DOC has made progress in justifying the relationship between a research project and the effect of commercial fishing on the particular protected species, and the associated levy.

2.12
DOC has also made progress in demonstrating to stakeholders how the cost recovery framework has been applied to proposed research projects, including the rationale for the apportionment of costs to industry.

2.13
We expect DOC to continue to refine the work it has undertaken.

Commercial fishing’s effect on the black petrel

2.14
In 2002, we found limited evidence to support DOC’s belief that large numbers of black petrels were caught in long commercial fishing lines. We recommended that DOC reconsider the adequacy of its evidence.

2.15
We recommended that, if DOC continued to have that belief, it should justify its view by demonstrating:

• the current or potential adverse effect that commercial fishing has on the black petrel;
• the extent of that effect; and
• how the applicable research relates to that effect.

What progress has been made in implementing our recommendations?

2.16
DOC continues to believe that black petrels are vulnerable to commercial fishing. In order to demonstrate the nature and extent of the adverse effects of fishing on black petrels, DOC considers that it needs:

• demographic information of the black petrel population;
• modelling of the demographic information;
• foraging studies, to determine the overlap with fishing activities; and
• information derived from observations.⁵

2.17
SeaFIC does not consider that black petrels are vulnerable to commercial fishing, and submitted during consultation for the Conservation Services Programme’s 2004-05 annual plan that there were other human sources of mortality for the black petrel. DOC considered these submissions, and no longer recovers research costs from the fishing industry.

2.18
DOC is funding research on the black petrel during the 2004-05 year. If DOC is satisfied from the research that the black petrel is vulnerable to commercial fishing, then DOC believes that the fishing industry should pay for costs in proportion to the risk it poses to this species.

Our conclusions

2.19
DOC is funding the research it believes will prove that commercial fishing is having an adverse effect on the black petrel. Without that link having been established, it is appropriate, in our view, for the Crown to fund this research (rather than the commercial fishing industry).

2.20
If DOC decides to impose a levy for future research, we are confident that DOC’s process for annual consultation with interested parties will ensure that any such decisions are subject to the appropriate scrutiny.

Explicit assurance for the Minister of Fisheries

2.21
In 2002, we noted that the Minister of Fisheries recommends the making of the levy order to recover the costs of both conservation and fisheries services, but has no direct role in determining whether a project is within the definition of “conservation services” for the purposes of the Fisheries Act 1996.

2.22
We recommended that the Minister of Fisheries receive explicit assurance from the Minister of Conservation that any conservation services projects that the fishing industry is levied for are “conservation services” as defined in section 2 of the Fisheries Act 1996.

What progress has been made in implementing our recommendation?

2.23
The Conservation Services Programme’s Annual Plan 2004-05 includes a statement from the Minister of Conservation to the effect that the projects referred to in the annual plan are “conservation services” for the purposes of the Fisheries Act 1996.

2.24
A letter is also now sent from the Minister of Conservation to the Minister of Fisheries, which includes a statement to the same effect. Our conclusion

2.25
DOC does provide assurance to the Minister of Fisheries that proposed projects are “conservation services” for the purposes of the Fisheries Act 1996.

3: Statutory Regulation 2001/229.

4: Section 262(b) of the Fisheries Act 1996 states “Costs of conservation services or fisheries services provided in the general public interest, rather than in the interest of an identifiable person or class of person, may not be recovered”.

5: According to DOC, the small size of almost all the commercial fishing vessels using long lines and fishing in the outer Hauraki Gulf and along the shelf edge of the Bay of Plenty – the areas that DOC believes black petrels forage in New Zealand – complicates the placement of Ministry of Fisheries’ observers.