A/HRC/18/35/Add.4 claimant group or one of its members from pursuing modern claims against the Crown. However, Maori express serious concern about the lack of independent and impartial oversight of the settlement outcomes. This lack of independent review contributes to a feeling on the part of Maori of an imbalance of power in the settlement process, as well as a feeling that the settlement process is at times unfair. 42. The Special Rapporteur understands that there are many difficulties and complexities involved in the Government’s laudable effort to provide redress for historical grievances through negotiated Treaty settlement. Nevertheless, the aforementioned concerns have fomented an uneasiness and mistrust by Maori of the Treaty settlement process, which may have negative implications for achieving the important goals of redress and reconciliation that the process is designed to advance. The Special Rapporteur observes that increasing Maori participation in and influence over settlement policies, procedures, and outcomes could go a long way in alleviating the apparent discontent in the Treaty settlement process felt by Maori groups. D. Settlements and outstanding cases 43. There have been several noteworthy settlements reached by specific iwi groups as well as pan-Maori settlements. Among these is the fisheries case, which took years to settle and followed a 1992 report by the Waitangi Tribunal in the Ngai Tahu fisheries claim.27 The settlement provides Maori with an interest in half of New Zealand’s largest fishing company and allocates Maori with 23 per cent of the existing fishing quota, plus 20 per cent of all fishing quota issued in the future. Another example is the Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act of 2004 (No. 107), under which the Crown will provide Maori with the equivalent of 20 per cent of aquaculture space in the coastal marine area. While there have been some controversial aspects of these settlements, most notably that all present and future claims to commercial fishing and commercial aquaculture sites are considered fully settled, overall, these settlements have already provided significant benefits to the Maori as a whole and are expected to continue to do so in the future. 44. The Special Rapporteur was also informed about several cases that are pending before the Waitangi Tribunal or the subject of settlement negotiations with the Crown. Many of these pending cases entail difficult challenges to settlement that are yet to be overcome, as exemplified by the following cases: (a) Whanganui iwi. In 1999, following a claim lodged by the Whanganui iwi, the Waitangi Tribunal issued the Whanganui River Report, recommending to the Government that “the authority of [the iwi] in the Whanganui River should be recognized in appropriate legislation. It should include recognition of the [iwi] right of ownership of the Whanganui River, as an entity and as a resource, without reference to the English legal conception of river ownership in terms of riverbeds”.28 In September 2009, the Whanganui entered into settlement negotiations with the Government over the Whanganui River. The iwi are seeking to co-manage the river in partnership with local councils and government agencies, in a way that benefits the cultural, environmental, social, political, and economic development of the iwi; (b) Ngati Tuhoe. Tuhoe is one of the largest iwis, comprising some 32,670 people, and is also one of the poorest iwi communities in New Zealand, scoring at the 27 28 “Ngi Tahu Sea fisheries report, Wai-27” (Wellington, Brooker and Friend, 1992). Wai 167, The Whanganui River Report, p. 343. 13