8 Conclusion
This report and its conclusions are based on a small sample, with limited time to spend with each group and individual. The responses were not independently validated, and as such the conclusions are based on reported understanding and, to the extent possible, observed behaviour. The report and its conclusions should therefore be read with some caution. Given this, there are some important conclusions which we believe can be reached:
- We do not believe there is a significant mismatch between consent holders' understanding of their rights and an objective assessment of these property rights. Some differences exist in respect of transferability, but this is relatively minor in terms of current management of the resource.
- The quality of title is most attenuated from a pure property right, with flexibility duration and transferability next most attenuated. While divisibility is probably significantly attenuated, this did not appear to be a major issue for consent holders at this stage. There were some concerns regarding exclusivity, but again not to any extent which would affect management.
- While quality was the aspect of the property right identified as most attenuated by extractors, their management response by and large appeared minimal. It was felt that they rationalised the risks posed by lack of quality and duration in the title, and it is likely that they had good reason to do so as custom and practice probably supported their position. The exception to this was the claw back provisions, which appeared to be having significant impact in the Tasman area.
- We felt that flexibility and transferability had the greatest scope to distort investment and management behaviour in respect to the property right. In particular constraints on flexibility, were already distorting actions by some of those spoken to. We have some concerns in the longer term over issues of duration, but this was not a major expressed concern from the consent holders.
- The aspects of property rights appear to come in packages. It would be important to address at a minimum issues of quality and duration in tandem, and flexibility and transferability together. Ideally all aspects would be addressed simultaneously, since this each influences the other. Of greatest importance initially is the need to address the quality of title to give greater certainty to all stakeholders. This will come with increased knowledge of the resources and improved planning regimes.
- The influence of other stakeholders on property rights of consent holders was perceived by holders to be increasing and would be of greater importance in the future. The other stakeholders however perceived consent holders to have a very high level of security with their right and were frustrated that their own rights were not being adequately addressed by the management process.
