Since the end of the public inquiry in May 2019, we have managed to obtain the report of the investigating commissioner which you will find below in pdf to download
The AVP's comments on the report:
BG comments on the final report of the Commissioner-Investigator, relating to the public inquiry of the Moorea PGEM
One could hope for an investigating commissioner who showed a minimum of "neutrality" and made a report showing a minimum of "seriousness" and professionalism: this is absolutely not the case;
the absence of any constraints for fishermen is confirmed without any difficulty; the lack of consultation with certain categories of users (particularly boaters) is not the subject of any remark ("excellent consultation (sic)"), the conditions for organising the EP are brushed aside, the regularization of current illegal situations (embankments, etc.) is referred to Greek calendars, etc. etc.
Normally, a "pro" investigating commissioner provides an answer to all the comments made in writing, even the most "idiotic": here, for example, out of my 36 observations, 21 have no response at all, and for 14 others, the EC responds shamelessly to Side...
Of the 46 pages of his report, the first 17 are an outright copy of the text of the PGEM itself, and legal texts: filling. Pages 18 to 38 are a copy of public observations, made in the form of distorted summaries: again, almost filling. Only pages 39 to 46 (with lots of blank space) are the work of the EC: really not much for such a file.
Finally, his final opinion hides behind the false nose of the "recommendations", which he knows full well that the committee of the PGEM can put them instantly in the trash without even reading them ...
Conclusion: an EC at the orders, and a report where it does not even bother to hide it .
Report issued on May 27, 2019, in accordance with the law (one month after ep end).
Why was there no advertising, no dissemination, no information, no sending (as promised) to the editor of the comments, .... or even a clear hesitation when we started asking in July where this document was ???
Pages 1 to 15: a simple copy of the contents of the MLP.
Page 16: G, file composition
"was developed in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code": Obviously, no, because one of the maps is missing ...
Page 17: H, consultation organization
An outright resumption of the text of the ministerial decree.
Access to the register only in the presence of the EC: for the EC, this is the case for all EPs in FP.... :
False (see for example, Order 475 MCE/ENV of 16/01/2019: "During the opening hours of the town hall, the public can read the file and comment on the register open for this purpose. »)
150 people came to see the file, and 70 made comments.
No indication that foreigners were involved in the observations
Pages 18 to 38: copy of the observations made by the 70 people above
This is not a strict copy, but a "summary" that significantly distorts the real questions...
Page 39 to 46: synthetic analysis of observations by the EC
The presentation is not intended to promote the clarity of the presentation; usually, the EC makes a table in 2 columns, left the observations (grouped if they are emitted identically by several people), right its answers. The method chosen by Mr Ponia allows him to blithely disappear many questions .... problems (in my case, 21 out of 36 questions get no answers from the EC).
- PGEM content:
The EC nicely tackles the fishermen: complete disappearance of obligations for fishermen, but without daring to oppose it head-on
Multiplications of zoning, incomprehensible
- Access to the file, how the investigation unfolded:
Nothing to say for the EC, in accordance with the letter of the law and the usual practices in Polynesia (does not respond to my remarks, namely why we do not do as in Metropolis, where the law is nevertheless the same ...)
- Missing map
The EC did not verify this point ("it is likely (sic) a drafting error")
- 250m limit
The EC does not provide an explanation for this change (compared to the old 70m)
- Transitional arrangements (no date)
The EC leaves all freedom to set any date (including in 150 years ...): lamentable
Many negative comments on the subject
Nevertheless, the EC requires that this prerogative be defined for the benefit of the municipality, including control on the ground..., despite numerous observations (including local) totally opposed due to obvious conflicts of interest
- Boaters' representative on the Standing Committee
The EC says no, with the mind-boggling argument "boaters are no more important to visitors to the island"; Uh, visitors to the island are not concerned with the PGEM (they are essentially ashore), and boaters are also ... visitors to the island...
The EC (rightly) refuses that scientists can deviate from speed limits
- Sailboat sandboats and quotas
Believes that the proposed quotas are a good compromise (... done without consultation???)
But proposes to remove 10 places (Tiki and Mamaa), by deferring them to the planned marina at the bottom of Oponohu Bay
Requests the installation of buoys (Cook, ...)
Request mooring management (onshore service, ...)
And do not respond to constructive proposals (spread the moorings from the north to the southern areas, etc...)
The EC confirms that it clearly specifies the protection zones (it costs nothing ...)
- Temporary Occupation Authorizations for the Maritime Domain (AOT)
The EC calls for a ban on future AOTs, even for hotels....
Note: Organized Mooring Zones (paid buoys) are also AOTs !!!
- Archaeological digs
The Ce has nothing to say (and for good reason, there have been no comments ...!)
- Scientific research
The EC agrees with the scientists' requests, annual review - mapping
- Access to the sea
The EC wants to see other access to
Limit sunscreens, monoi, etc...
The EC does not get wet, and does not respond in any way to the observation of kitesurfers.
Calls for a ban on the Teavaro area
- Fishing with a rifle
The EC refers to the (future) Fishermen's Committee decisions on the regulation of fishing activities....
There, clearly, he is PRO-fishers
The EC makes a convoluted sentence, which can be read both ways: totally forbidden, or authorized...
v Temae (lake)
Various recommendations from the EC; I don't know if it's going in the right direction or not
The EC wants the rules to be clarified in the
- Small marina background of Oponohu Bay
The EC wants the PGEM to be made compatible with this marina
- Watching rays and sharks
The EC does not want new sites
- Dive sites
The EC does not get wet: approval of the standing committee for the 3 new sites (it is already written in the PGEM)
The EC is asking for a complete ban ...: here it takes a firm opinion ...?
- Tourism development
For the EC, no incompatibility between the reduction of boating and the development of tourism (without argument, obviously ...)
PGA/PGEM link (land discharges, sanitation, pesticides,...)
Educational programs in schools
TV spots, press articles
It feels good, it fills the page, and does not eat bread ....
Page 46: Conclusion
"Positive opinion recommending that my recommendations be taken into account."
The EC can only issue four types of final notices:
- Favorable with reservations (to be raised by the petitioner)
- Favorable with recommendations (the petitioner is free to read them or not)
In this case, the committee, and the government, are totally free to do whatever they want with the text of the MLEP presented...
- Nowhere does the EC talk about the problem reported on multiple occasions, the lack of consultation with sailboats (apart from a generic phrase "excellent consultation"): it is clearly stuck on this point.
Nothing will be known until the publication of the decree enacting the text (modified or not) of the revised EMMA.
Before or after the 2020 municipal elections?