Review of Sustainability Measures and Other Management Controls for 1 October 2008 Volume 1: Final Advice Papers and Summary of Recommendations 09 September 2008 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3 STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS AND POLICY GUIDELINES.............................................. 6 ORANGE ROUGHY (ORH 3B) - FINAL ADVICE ............................................................. 28 DEEMED VALUE RATES FOR SELECTED FISHSTOCKS – FINAL ADVICE.............. 65 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................... 109 2 INTRODUCTION 1 This paper provides you with the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) initial position, final advice and recommendations on those sustainability measures and other management controls reviewed for 1 October 2008. 2 This Final Advice Paper (FAP) is produced in three volumes: Volume 1 Statutory Obligations and Policy Guidelines Final Advice Papers Summary of Recommendations Volume 2 Summary of Submissions Initial Position Papers Volume 3 Submissions Initial Position Papers 3 The initial position papers (IPP) were developed for consultation as required under the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act). They contained MFish’s initial position on the fishstocks and deemed values identified for review. MFish emphasised that the views and recommendations outlined the papers were preliminary and were being provided as a basis for consultation with stakeholders. Consultation 4 On or about 30 June 2008 MFish provided copies of the IPPs (contained in Volume 2) to iwi, stakeholders and you. Stakeholders and iwi were asked to provide written submissions on the IPP by 11 August 2008. 5 A summary of the submissions received for each IPP are contained in Volume 2. The submissions themselves are included in Volumes 3. 3 Final Advice Paper 6 This paper contains MFish’s final advice to you on management measures for orange roughy (ORH 3B) and deemed value rates for selected fishstocks for the 1 October 2008 sustainability round. 7 Each FAP section provides MFish discussion (including an analysis of your statutory obligations in relation to each issue) and MFish’s preferred options. 8 A summary of recommendations for both of the FAPs is included at the end of Volume 1. 9 A copy of this final advice paper will be made available to iwi and stakeholders who made a submission on these proposals, following the announcement of your decisions. Implementation of Decisions 10 Following your final decision on any changes to management controls for 1 October 2008, officials will provide you with a draft letter to stakeholders outlining your decisions. 11 In addition, s 12(2) of the Act requires that after setting or varying any sustainability measure, you are required to write to sector groups advising them of the reasons for your final decisions. 4 Section One Statutory Obligations and Policy Guidelines 5 STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS AND POLICY GUIDELINES 1 The Final Advice Paper (FAP) provides the Minister with the best information available to make a decision, legal obligations, the available options and the risks/consequences of each possible course of action. In short, MFish provides full information and ensures that the implications of actions are understood. Included in this analysis will be the possible consequences of leaving all management measures unchanged (the status quo). 2 This section provides guidance on the interpretation those sections of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act) that are most relevant to setting sustainability measures. This will help interpret the information and advice provided in individual papers. Purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996 (s 8) 3 The purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996 is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. It is a statement of the overarching goal for fisheries management against which all decisions under that Act must be measured. The purpose statement guides the exercise of decision making powers pursuant to the Act. 4 “Ensuring sustainability” as defined provides a guide on desirable yields from a fishery. Fisheries resources are to be maintained with the potential to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations. In addition, the purpose requires that any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment should be avoided, remedied or mitigated. 5 “Utilisation” of fisheries resources is defined as conserving, using, enhancing, and developing fisheries resources to enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. There is a positive obligation to provide for the use of fisheries resources. While the Act does not require the government to promote fishing or maximise value, there is a positive obligation to provide a level and quality of access to fisheries resources, thereby enabling people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing from fishing. Section 8 refers to “enabling people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing”. This implies decisions under the Act should enable people to provide for their own wellbeing. Decisions should create the opportunities. 6 The Select Committee in its final report to the House of Representatives on the Fisheries Bill (as it then was) stated that the intention of the Bill was to “facilitate the activity of fishing while having regard to the sustainability of harvests and mitigating the effects of fishing on the environment”. In the Coromandel Scallops Fishermen’s Association (Inc) v Minister of Fisheries case (Wellington CP 182/99, 13 September 1999) the High Court noted that “utilisation is subject to the overriding objective of sustainability” (at page 22). In an earlier judgment, the High Court considered that “when in doubt decision makers must favour conserving the fishing stock”, noting that this was plain from the “international agreements” (see Roaring Forties Seafoods Limited & Ors v Minister of Fisheries (High Court, Wellington CP 64/97, 1 May 1997) at page 9). 6 7 Since then the courts have given further consideration to how the purpose of the Act is to be applied, and in particular the relationship between utilisation and sustainability. In the Squid Fishery Management Co v Minister of Fisheries, 13 July 2004, CA39/04 litigation, the Court of Appeal noted that: “The Minister…was required to balance utilisation objectives and conservation values. In the context of a harvestable species, this requires utilisation to the extent that it is sustainable...” 8 The purpose statement provides for one purpose that contains the elements of providing for utilisation and ensuring the sustainability of fisheries resources. This does not mean that one arm of the purpose is more important than the other is. Rather, it means that the two arms operate in parallel, and not independently of each other. Both elements need to be fully considered when acting under the Act. However, the bottom line must always be sustainability. 9 In operation the range of management measures that may be applied to achieve the purpose of the Act will produce a continuum of potential outcomes. This continuum reflects the balance that must be struck between providing for utilisation whilst ensuring sustainability. The continuum represents the range of options that must ensure sustainability with varying degrees of risk. Each option within the continuum also provides different levels of utilisation depending on the level of risk to sustainability the decision maker considers acceptable. The decision on a particular point on the continuum is in essence a decision on the appropriate balance between sustainability risk and short-term utilisation on a case by case basis. However, the overriding point is that sustainability must be ensured by each option. The explicit reference in the definition of “utilisation” to social, economic, and cultural factors indicates that all decisions made under the Act should consider these issues. Future Generations 10 The Act, in its directive to provide for future generations, draws no direct distinction between the next generation and some distant generation in time. No precise determination is possible of where one generation begins and another generation ends. The time scale involved may be dependent upon the interests that are to be taken into account. Logically the time frame relevant to the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations may be as short as each generation of children or an indefinite time in the future. 11 The needs of future generations however are to be considered in the context of the purpose of the Act and the provisions of the Act as a whole. The obligation is not open ended, it is what decision makers can reasonably identify as a need for a particular generation. Future generation objectives are characterised by uncertainty — what level of population will exist in the future; what future preferences will be; what future requirements will be; what the impacts of our present actions will be; and, what technological innovations will allow. But in cases of uncertainty the information principles of the Act (s 10) are to be applied appropriately. 12 The objective of the Act is to sustain fisheries resources for future use, not to provide for how future generations may desire to use such resources. Uncertainty is therefore to be considered in the context of how current decisions impact on the ability to 7 provide for future use of the resource. Reference to “maintaining potential” to meet needs suggests that the crucial requirement in respect of future generations is to ensure the renewability of fisheries resources indefinitely at a quantity that provides for continual utilisation. Hence, the aim of the Act can be seen in part as providing for the extractive use of fisheries resources in the present, whilst maintaining the potential of those fisheries resources to provide for future generations. 13 The maintenance of the general functioning of the aquatic environment is intended by the Act only in respect of managing fishing activities. Whereas enhancement of the aquatic environment, beyond that achieved through the avoidance, remedy or mitigation of adverse effects of fishing, is not. In terms of maintenance of the productivity of natural resources, the Act requires that biomass of a fishstock be maintained at a level that is at or above the level required to produce the MSY. MSY is the greatest yield that can be achieved over time while maintaining the stock’s productive capacity. Therefore MSY caters for both maintenance of reproductive potential and ongoing utilisation. For most harvested stocks MSY is a practical means of providing for the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations. The Act provides some circumstances for departure from this reference point in respect of stocks listed on the Third Schedule to the Act (s 14), and stocks maintained at a level below BMSY but above their long-term viability (ss 14A and 14B). 14 The interests of future generations are described in s 8(2)(a) as relating to “fisheries resources” which are defined as “fish, aquatic life, seaweed”. No express reference is made to the inanimate elements of the aquatic ecosystem. It is considered implicit in the legislation that a sustainable aquatic ecosystem is integral to, or a pre-requisite of, the ability of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations. However, in meeting reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations the scope of the Act relates to managing the effects of fishing, not all impacts on the aquatic environment. Effects of Fishing 15 The obligation to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects of fishing pursuant to s 8(2)(b) of the Act is the second element of ensuring sustainability. Consideration as to what is adverse may be assessed on scientific knowledge about the environment, but may also utilise traditional knowledge. It is also likely to be influenced by stakeholder/community perceptions as to what is acceptable. 16 The requirement to “remedy” or “mitigate” suggests that such measures may be implemented over a time frame relevant to the circumstances of the individual decision and nature of the activity involved. Equally achievement of this objective will contribute to maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to contribute to the wellbeing of future generations. 17 The Act does not define an “adverse effect”; rather it defines the term “effect”. The term “effect” has a very broad definition, including effects that are temporary or permanent; past, present, or future; cumulative; any potential effect of high probability; and any potential effect of low probability, which has a high potential impact. No threshold is specified as to the magnitude of any adverse effect required before any measure in response is to be adopted. Hence the measures adopted in response should be commensurate with the nature and extent of the adverse effect. 8 There are a number of other variable factors that will influence whether an effect is considered adverse: characteristics of the aquatic environment; impacts from the removal of fish; the scale, intensity, and duration of effects; scarcity of environment type at local, regional, national, international level; resilience of habitat; the effects of activities other than fishing at a region level, the relationship of fishing effects to this; human perception and values; and the level of information available on any of these. 18 The Act does not prescribe an order of priority between the obligations to avoid, remedy or mitigate. The onus is on the decision maker to ensure that any adverse effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The obligation to “avoid, remedy or mitigate” is not subject to any qualifier to the effect that such measures only need to be undertaken to an agreed standard. The appropriate response must depend on the circumstances of the case, and should be guided by the environmental principles (s 9) and the information principles (s 10) in the Act. 19 Decision makers can weigh up all the environmental factors contributing to the effect, along with the possible options available for avoidance; consider relevant social, economic and cultural factors; take into account the environmental and information principles of the Act; and opt for the most appropriate option of either avoid, remedy or mitigate. In some instances, only one response may be effective. Accordingly, completely irreversible effects are to be avoided. In other instances, it may be appropriate to consider a range of options. MFish acknowledges that sustainability is not a purpose to be traded off against utilisation through an analysis of the benefits and costs. However, the Act allows a range of approaches for achieving sustainability, and these may, and indeed should, be compared in terms of benefits and costs. International Obligations 20 Section 5(a) of the Act provides that the Act shall be interpreted, and all persons exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers under the Act shall act, in a manner consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing. Those acting pursuant to the Act must understand, and act in a manner consistent with, the international obligations that the New Zealand Government has accepted. A general principle to apply is that where there is a choice in interpretation of the Act or the exercise of discretion, s 5(a) requires that the decision maker choose the option that is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing. 21 It is MFish’s view that the provisions of the Act, and the proposed exercise of powers under the legislation, are generally consistent with New Zealand’s existing international obligations relating to fishing. Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act Obligations 22 The Act shall be interpreted, and all persons exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers under the Act, are required to act in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. This also requires an interpretation that best furthers the agreements expressed in the Deed of Settlement referred to in the Preamble to the Settlement Act. 9 23 The Settlement Act acknowledges that the Crown continues to be subject to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in respect of non-commercial Maori fishing rights. The Settlement Act did not extinguish the duty to act in accordance with the principles of the Treaty in respect of non-commercial Mäori fishing rights and interests, and goes as far as specifically requiring this in relation to the obligations under s 10 of the Settlement Act. 24 MFish acknowledges the following basic requirements apply to the Crown’s obligation to act in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi: 25 a) that the Crown acts reasonably and in good faith towards its Treaty partner; b) that the Crown makes informed decisions; and c) that the Crown avoids impediments to providing redress, and avoids creating new grievances. These principles put an onus on MFish to establish structures and work practices that ensure it is capable of meeting its obligations to Mäori under fisheries legislation. In New Zealand Mäori Council v Attorney General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 the Court of Appeal concluded: “the responsibility of one treaty partner to act in good faith fairly and reasonably towards the other puts the onus on a partner, here the Crown, when acting within its sphere to make an informed decision, that is a decision where it is sufficiently informed as to the relevant facts and law to be able to say it has had proper regard to the impact of the principles of the Treaty.” (at page 683) 26 The principle of partnership and the requirement to act in good faith towards the other Treaty partner extends an obligation on the Crown to also consider and act on any proposals put forward by tangata whenua for the management of their customary fisheries. The principle of avoiding the creation of new grievances is of particular relevance in the fisheries environment now that a full and final settlement has been achieved. Fisheries management decisions seldom impact on one sector group alone, and the risk of such decisions adversely impacting on the secured rights and interests of Mäori is a very real one. Environmental Principles (s 9) 27 The Act prescribes three environmental principles that the Minister must take into account when exercising powers in relation to utilising fisheries resources and ensuring sustainability. Principle 1: Associated or dependent species should be maintained above a level that ensures their long-term viability. 28 The Act defines “associated and dependent species” as any non-harvested species taken or otherwise affected by the taking of a harvested species. “Harvested species” is defined as any fish, aquatic life or seaweed that for the time being may be taken with lawful authority. Fishers have lawful authority to take most species. Exceptions 10 include those where a fisher does not have a permit to take a species listed on Schedule 4C to the Act – these are subject to the permit moratorium – and protected species such as marine mammals and most seabirds. These together constitute associated or dependent species. 29 The term “long-term viability” (in relation to a biomass level of a stock or species) is defined in the Act as a low risk of collapse of the stock or species, and the stock or species has the potential to recover to a higher biomass level. This principle therefore requires the continuing existence of species by maintaining populations in a condition that ensures a particular level of reproductive success. The long term viability will be different for each species so necessitates a case-by-case analysis. 30 Long-term viability could be achieved at very low levels of population size, depending on associated risks, such as recruitment failure at low population sizes. Where fishing is affecting the viability of associated and dependent species, there is an obligation to take appropriate measures, such as method restrictions, area closures, and potentially adjustments to the total allowable catch (TAC) of the target stock. Principle 2: Biological diversity of the aquatic environment should be maintained. 31 32 “Biological diversity” means the variability among living organisms, including diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems. The “aquatic environment” is defined as: a) The natural and biological resource comprising any aquatic ecosystem; and b) Includes all aquatic life and the oceans, seas, coastal areas, inter-tidal areas, estuaries, rivers, lakes and other places where aquatic life exists. When considering any decision under the Act, particularly sustainability measures, the impact of current or future impacts on biodiversity must be taken into account. The maintenance of biodiversity needs to be considered in the context of the purpose of the Act, which is that, where possible, a resource should be used to the extent that sustainability is not compromised. Determining the level of fishing or the impacts of fishing that can occur requires an assessment of the risk that fishing might cause biodiversity to be reduced to an unacceptable level. Principle 3: Habitat of particular significance for fisheries management should be protected. 33 Habitat is not defined in the Act, but MFish considers it to be “the place or type of area in which an organism naturally occurs” (NZ Biodiversity Strategy). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (USA) defines “essential fish habitat” as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity”. The maintenance of healthy fishstocks requires the mitigation of threats to fish habitat. However, fishing may not be the sole source of the threat; a range of terrestrial activities may impact on fisheries habitats. Habitats of special significance, such as those that assist in the reproductive and productive process of a fishery, should be protected. Adverse effects on such areas must be avoided, remedied or mitigated. 11 Information Principles (s 10) 34 The nature of the data and assumptions used to generate fisheries assessments and the results produced contain inherent variation and uncertainty. The Act specifies the information principles that must be taken in account when making decisions in relation to utilisation of fisheries resources or ensuring sustainability. a) Decisions should be based on the best available information. The Act defines best information that, in the particular circumstances, is available without unreasonable cost, effort or time; b) Decision makers should consider any uncertainty in the information available in any case; c) Decision makers should be cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate; and d) The absence of, or any uncertainty in, any information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take any measure to achieve the purpose of the Act. 35 A person with decision making powers under the Act is required “to take into account” the information principles set out in s 10. The information principles do not of themselves impose any statutory or fiduciary duty on the Crown to actively obtain the information necessary such that the obligations under the Act are able to be discharged. The information principles provide guidance as to how decisions are to be legitimately made on the basis of the information which is available. 36 The principle that decisions should be based on the best available information, provides guidance that decision-makers (ie the Minister or MFish) should seek to obtain the best information provided that, in the particular circumstances, is available without unreasonable cost, effort or time (as provided for in the definition of best available information in section 2 of the Act). Where new and better information comes to light during the decision-making process, that information should be incorporated into, and update, the information basis for a proposed decision. Determining uncertainty – scientific and anecdotal information 37 Information as defined in the Act includes scientific, customary Maori, social or economic information and any analysis on any such information. The best available information for any given decision will likely necessarily incorporate both scientific and anecdotal (or quantitative and qualitative) information. As such both scientific and anecdotal information should be considered and weighed accordingly when making management decisions. 38 The weighting assigned to particular information is subject to the certainty, reliability and adequacy of that information. As a general principle, information on stock status outlined in the MFish Fishery Assessment Plenary Report, when available, should be given significant weighting. The information presented in the Report is subject to a robust process of scientific peer review. 12 39 Anecdotal information on stock status typically should receive lesser weighting than the Plenary Report. However, MFish believes that corroborated anecdotal information has a useful role to play in the stock assessment process and in the management process. Such processes should take account of all relevant inputs, and MFish believes that anecdotal information may provide useful, supplementary information to that contained in the Plenary Report, and should be taken into consideration where appropriate. 40 Although all sector groups are invited to participate in the stock assessment process, recreational, environmental and customary interests are often not represented due to a lack of resources. Therefore, anecdotal information from these groups may not be available at the time of the assessment to help interpret the quantitative modelling results. In particular, there are often difficulties in obtaining scientific information on the local availability of stocks in areas of importance to customary and recreational fishers given that the Plenary Report often focuses on assessing the status of a stock at the QMA level. Anecdotal information from customary and recreational sources may be an especially useful source of information in these cases. How to make decisions under uncertainty: Fisheries Act 1996 41 The current Fisheries Act 1996 makes clear that while decision makers should be cautious where information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate, they should not postpone decisions until they have full or completely certain information. The information on which decisions must be based may be unreliable in itself; or it may be insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the extent of a sustainability risk. More commonly, it suffers both these weaknesses. In these circumstances decision makers must balance competing risks: the risk of unnecessarily constraining utilisation on the one hand, versus the risk of placing sustainability in jeopardy, on the other. Consultation (s 12) 42 When the Minister implements a sustainability measure under the Act, [he] is required to consult with those classes of persons having an interest (including, but not limited to, Maori, environmental, commercial and recreational interest) in the stock or the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned. 43 Statutory consultation occurs after policy options have been developed. The IPP provides stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on the various options. The FAP provides advice to the Minister that includes the results of that consultation. 44 Section 12 also requires the Minster to provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in the stock concerned or an interest in the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned. The Minister must also have regard to kaitiakitanga. This is a legal requirement, and reflects the provisions of the Settlement Act, and the Crown’s commitment to its treaty partner. Input and participation may include tangata whenua being involved in identifying concerns and developing proposals as well as being involved in formulating possible outcomes. 13 Sustainability Measures 45 The Act provides for the setting of sustainability measures. The Act defines as “sustainability measures” those measures set under Part III of the Act for the purpose of ensuring sustainability. There are a range of measures that can be adopted under Part III, the most identifiable being a TAC for stocks in the Quota Management System (QMS) and catch limits for non-QMS stocks. Factors to be taken into account when setting sustainability measures 46 Prior to setting or varying a sustainability measure the Minister is required to take a number of factors into account. The purpose and principles of the Act (ie ss 8−10), together with ss 5 and 12, are applicable to any decision the Minister may make to set or vary a sustainability measure. Stock characteristics and management controls 47 Under s 11(1) the Minister may set or vary any sustainability measure, including a Total Allowable Catch (TAC), after taking into account the following factors: a) Any effects of fishing on the stock and the aquatic environment; b) Any existing controls that apply to the stock or area concerned; c) The natural variability of the stock concerned. 48 In accordance with achieving the purpose of the Act, any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment should be avoided, remedied, or mitigated. As noted above in the section on environmental obligations, where MFish is aware of issues related to the effects of fishing associated with the stocks discussed, or issues are raised in submissions, they are discussed in the sections relating to that stock. 49 In general, the assessment for a fishstock will take into account the variability of the fishstock. Although the principal management mechanism for New Zealand’s commercial fisheries is a catch limit, this is augmented by a number of other input controls such as gear restrictions, minimum sizes and area closures. The assessment and advice in the sections following take these existing controls into account. Plans and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 50 Under section 11(2) the Minister must also have regard to relevant provisions of: a) Any regional policy statement, regional plan, or proposed regional plan under the Resource Management Act 1991; b) Any management strategy or management plan under the Conservation Act 1987 that apply to the coastal marine area and which the Minister considers to be relevant; c) Sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (see below). 14 51 The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 amended s 11(2)(c) of the Act to require the Minister, when setting or varying any sustainability measure relating to the Hauraki Gulf, to have regard to any provisions of ss 7 and 8 of that Act. Section 13 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act also requires decision-makers carrying out functions for the Hauraki Gulf under the Fisheries Act to have particular regard to the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. Section 7 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf including its capacity to provide for the relationship of tangata whenua and the social, economic, recreational and cultural well-being of people and communities. Section 8 sets out the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, which include the maintenance of the Hauraki Gulf for the social and economic well-being and its contribution to the recreation and enjoyment, of the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand. Many of these objectives mirror the concepts expressed in the purpose set out s 8 of the Fisheries Act, with perhaps a more explicit emphasis on recreational well-being. Fisheries plans and services 52 53 The Act (s 11(2A)) also requires that the Minister takes into account, before setting or varying any sustainability measure: a) any conservation services or fisheries services; b) any relevant fisheries plan approved under this Part; and c) any decisions not to require conservation services or fisheries services. Fisheries plans will specify a management framework for managing one or more stocks or areas in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Fisheries Act. Fisheries plans allow for explicit trade-offs between services and catch levels to be achieved in a transparent manner. There are no fisheries plans currently in place which require specific consideration. In future as fisheries plans are developed, specific reference to the implications for sustainability measures resulting from contents of the plan will be made in each stock section. General considerations 54 Consideration also needs to be given to how a sustainability measure is to be implemented. In approving the use of a sustainability measure, the Minister should consider the most effective way of achieving the desired outcome. The Minister may conclude that a sustainability measure does not need to be formally set. 55 An important factor in supporting the use of non-statutory measures is the degree of support for the measure and the nature of the monitoring and enforcement regime proposed to support the measure. An example of a non-statutory measure is a catch limit for a single species within a multi-species stock, such as oreo, or the use of a catch spreading arrangement for orange roughy on the Chatham Rise. Non-statutory measures may be supported by legally binding contractual arrangements entered into by the fishers concerned. However, as the Crown is not formally a party to such agreements, there is no formal sanction imposed under the Fisheries Act for a breach of a sustainability measure implemented by non-statutory means. Any failure to 15 adhere to non-statutory measures may mean that the Crown would be increasingly unlikely to rely on such measures subsequently. 56 Sustainability measures may also be set by regulatory means. The Act provides for the use of a regulation, or Gazette notice where necessary, to implement a sustainability measure. In the first instance, regulations are the preferred mechanism to implement general sustainability measures. However, a Gazette notice may provide a more timely and flexible response to particular situations than a regulatory response. For example, a Gazette notice may be used where a non-statutory implementation of a sustainability measure does not prove effective. Other Management Controls 57 The primary sustainability measure for quota management stocks is the TAC. This can be supported by a number of management controls that collectively ensure the sustainability of the stock and provide for utilisation within accepted limits. 58 Section 11 provides for the setting of sustainability measures. A range of possible supporting measures is specified in s 11(3), but the list of options is not limiting. Sustainability measures may relate to size limits, biological state, fishing seasons, methods restrictions and closed areas. For non–QMS stocks, measures can also include general and commercial catch limits. The measures provided for under s 11 may be applied at a local level to address localised depletion or localised sustainability problems. 59 The most appropriate sustainability measure to be set or varied will depend on the precise nature of the issue being addressed. Quota Management Stocks 60 The Act imposes a statutory requirement for the Minister to set a TAC for each QMS stock (s 13(1)). This requirement is modified by the condition that the Minister is not required to set an initial TAC for any fish stock unless it is proposed to also set or vary the TACC for that stock under s 20 of the Act (s 13(10)). For those fishstocks for which no TAC has been set, MFish’s policy has been to set TACs and allowances progressively over time, as the need to review those specific fishstocks arises. Setting a Total Allowable Catch 61 The Act contains a number of specific provisions to ensure a stock is managed sustainably. A key measure is the setting of a total allowable catch (TAC) for a QMS stock. 62 In the structure of the Act, setting a TAC is first a measure taken to ensure sustainability. As such, social, economic and cultural factors are not mandatory considerations when setting a TAC. However, the purpose of the Act is: to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. Therefore, in setting TACs, values for the utilisation of resources are also key considerations, and so social, economic and cultural factors are permissible considerations where appropriate. 16 63 For example, where the stock biomass target is set at a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), then utilisation values are being provided for in allowing the MSY to be taken. However, where utilisation values would be higher at stock levels above a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield – levels that are also more certain to be ensuring sustainability – social, economic and cultural factors would be appropriate considerations when setting the TAC. 64 The Act contains a number of different options (outlined below) for setting stock target levels. All of the options are consistent with the purpose of “ensuring sustainability”, but each option provides for a different management outcome. Maximum Sustainable Yield (s 13) 65 In the case of quota management stocks, s 13 of the Act specifies a requirement to maintain a fishstock at a target stock level being at, or above, a level that can produce the MSY. MSY is defined, in relation to any fishstock, as being the greatest yield that can be achieved over time while maintaining the stock’s productive capacity, having regard to the population dynamics of the stock and any environmental factors that influence the stock. A requirement to maintain stocks at a level that is capable of producing the MSY is generally recognised internationally as being an appropriate fishstock target, although there is some international support for MSY representing a minimum fishstock target. 66 If a stock is currently at its target level (at or above a biomass that will support MSY), s 13(2)(a) requires the Minister to set a TAC that will maintain the stock at that target level, having regard to the interdependence of stocks. Rebuilding the stock towards target levels 67 If the stock is currently below a target stock level, there is a requirement pursuant to s 13(2)(b) to set a TAC that will result in the stock being restored to a target stock level (at or above a biomass that will support MSY) in a way and rate which has regard to the interdependence of stocks and within a period appropriate to the stock, having regard to its biological characteristics and any environmental conditions affecting the stock. Fishing down a stock toward target levels or maintaining above 68 If the stock is above a target stock level (above a biomass that will support MSY), there is a requirement under s 13(2)(c) to set a TAC that will result in the stock moving towards the target stock level having regard to the interdependence of stocks. That target stock level may be at or above a biomass that will support MSY. Way and the rate 69 In determining the way in which, and rate at which, a stock is altered to achieve the target stock level, the Minister is required to have regard to such social, cultural and economic factors considered relevant (s 13(3)). Section 13(3) makes it explicit that those qualifying factors are relevant in the determination of the way and rate, rather than in the determination of the target stock level. By “having regard” to the relevant factors specified by the Act, the Minister must consciously consider those matters and 17 give due weight to them. However, the Minister has the discretion to give such weight to the matters as considered appropriate. 70 It is also important to note that, when the Minister is considering a significant reduction to the TAC, the advice to the Minister provides a careful cost/benefit analysis of a reasonable range of the way and rate options available in moving the fishery towards target biomass. This is so that, if the Minister decides on a TAC reduction having a major economic impact, it is evident that all other reasonable possibilities have been carefully analysed and why the TAC adopted was considered to be the preferable one – see New Zealand Fishing Industry Association (Inc) and Ors v Minister of Fisheries and Ors (CA82/97, 22/7/97) 71 The rate of rebuild to achieve the target biomass, and therefore the timeframe adopted to do so, is a matter for the Minister’s discretion. There is no set time frame within which the Minister must achieve a rebuild or “fishing down” of a stock. The Minister is given discretion under the Act to determine the rate at which the TAC is varied, subject to consideration of the relevant circumstances on a case by case basis. 72 Such considerations may include the potential impacts of decisions on the social, cultural and economic values of tangata whenua and stakeholders, including commercial and non-commercial fishers, and non-extractive users. Reference to cultural factors in s 13(3) encompasses but is not limited to the interests of Mäori and their cultural practices and values. 73 The interdependence of stocks (i.e. any fish, aquatic life or seaweed of one or more species that are treated as a unit for the purpose of fisheries management) is a statutory consideration under section 13 for determining a TAC. In turn the TAC determines the level at which a stock is managed relative to a level that can produce the MSY. The interdependence of stocks may include the relationships among and between harvested species. MFish interprets interdependence of stocks as a situation where there is a direct trophic relationship (i.e. one stock is likely to be directly affected through a predator or prey relationship by the abundance of another stock) or mutually beneficial relationship between stocks. This is therefore distinct from the requirement to protect the viability of associated and dependent species expressed in the environmental principles. Management above Bmsy 74 The Act allows the Minister to manage fisheries at or above the biomass that will produce MSY (BMSY) on an ongoing basis. In the case of quota management stocks, s 13 of the Act provides the scope for a stock to be managed at levels higher than BMSY. Such a target level may be an appropriate management strategy in order to meet the wider social, cultural or economic goals provided for under s 8 (the purpose) of the Act, or due to the interdependence of stocks, for the sustainability associated and dependent species, or to prevent damage to the aquatic environment. B 75 Where common goals exist or values coincide in particular stock target levels, a high degree of consensus amongst stakeholders may support management above BMSY. For example, an agreed management strategy may be developed among commercial and on-commercial stakeholders to improve catch rates or produce large fish. In such cases MFish would support the consensus in advice to the Minister. 18 76 MFish considers that management above BMSY is likely to be appropriate where there is consensus amongst stakeholders to do so. However, there is no legal requirement restricting the Minister to make this choice where such consensus either exists or does not exist. Managing sub-stocks 77 Under section 13, the Minister has a mandatory duty to set the TAC at a level that enables a stock that is below BMSY to be restored to at least a level that can produce MSY. In setting the TAC, the Minister must base this decision on BMSY for the stock as a whole (i.e. within the QMA) and not the individual level of any sub-stocks. For example, the Minister should not set the TAC at a level solely designed to bring a component sub-stock to BMSY. 78 The management of localised depletion or localised sustainability problems poses some challenges. Measures designed to ensure sustainability at a QMA level may not be effective at providing desired levels of access to fisheries on a localised basis. A determination is required as to which measures will best address the specific sustainability issue confronted. The Act allows scope for a range of measures, both regulatory and voluntary, that may be applied at the stock or local level to address sustainability issues. These include catch spreading arrangements; area specific catch limits and bag limits; closed areas; controls on methods, size, and season; and spatial measures such as mätaitai and taiapure. 79 Varying a TAC is primarily used to address stock-wide sustainability issues. However, localised sustainability issues may affect the maintenance of the stock at or above the level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, and therefore a TAC adjustment may be appropriate. The size of the area and/or the number of areas depleted is relevant to this consideration. Other matters 80 The Act specifies that the TAC is the primary tool for moving a stock towards the target stock level. Other measures may be adopted in conjunction with a change in the TAC, however such additional measures should not be relied on as a substitute for varying the TAC. 81 Under section 13(4), the Minister may vary any TAC for any quota management stock. When considering any such variation, the Minister is to have regard to the matters specified in ss13(2) and (3). 82 Any TAC that is set or varied has effect on and from the first day of the next fishing year for the stock concerned. An exception applies to those stocks listed on the second schedule to the Act (see heading below). 83 Section 13(5) of the Act specifies that a TAC of zero may be set. It may be in situations where there are strong biological reasons for prohibiting all removals from a stock in order to ensure sustainability. The setting of a zero TAC may be part of a specified rebuild strategy to move the stock towards the target stock level. Prior to setting a zero TAC the Minister would need to have regard to the social, cultural and economic costs and benefits associated with such a measure. 19 Amendment of Section 13 84 At present, Parliament is considering a Bill that, if passed, will amend section 13 of the Fisheries Act 1996. The Bill provides for technical amendments as a consequence of the judgment of Miller J in Anton’s Trawling Company Limited v The Minister of Fisheries (High Court, Wellington, CIV 2007-485-2199, 22 February 2008). The court in that case decided that before a TAC can be set under section 13, the Minister must be provided with an estimate of both current biomass and the biomass that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 85 Since the Act came into force, various management strategies—all consistent with the concept of MSY—have been pursued, some using modelled estimates of biomass levels and others using alternative indicators of the relative state of the stocks. Some of the alternative indicators have direct links to MSY. In other cases the links are inferred. These alternative approaches are commonly used in fish stocks where information on biomass is not readily available. This is the case for the majority of New Zealand’s 629 quota management stocks and is the norm internationally, being commonly used in jurisdictions with similar regimes such as Australia, the United States, and Canada. 86 The amendments will enable TACs to continue to be set under section 13 using existing management approaches where the current biomass and the biomass that can produce a MSY are not able to be estimated reliably. 87 In effect, considerations in decision-making should not change (this is the intention of the amendment), but advice on the setting and variation of TACs under section 13 will need to identify which subsection should be used to provide the proper criteria for the decisions. This will depend on whether biomass estimates now required by the existing section 13(2) are available for the particular stock in question. Allocation of the TAC 88 The Minister is required to make allowances for different fishing interests under sections 20 and 21 of the Act. The Minister makes a separate decision about allocation after setting the TAC. In setting or varying the TACC under section 20, and thus establishing the commercial share, the Minister must allow for Mäori customary noncommercial fishing interests, recreational interests and all other mortality to that stock caused by fishing under section 21; these will be discussed below. Discretion to allocate TAC 89 The Minister, on each occasion [he or she] reconsiders allocation of the TAC for that stock, has the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, how to allocate the TAC. There is little statutory guidance on the apportionment of the TAC among sector groups, either with respect to quantitative measure or prioritisation of allocation. 90 A conscious transfer of catch between sectors is a legitimate activity under the Act. An allocation decision that adversely affects ITQ holders but which advantages – deliberately or incidentally – non-commercial interests is not in itself outside, or contrary to, the purpose of the Act. 20 91 The appropriate allocation is a matter for the Minister’s assessment bearing in mind all relevant considerations on each occasion [he or she] revisits the issue. The allocation of the TAC can be changed under various circumstances, not just in relation to a change in biomass. For example, the Minister is not precluded from giving extra allowance to meet a greater recreational demand, subject to [his] obligation to weigh carefully all the competing demands on the TAC before deciding how much should be allocated to each sector group. Customary allowance 92 The allowance made for customary fishing should satisfy customary interests, and therefore the allowance should not constrain the level of customary catch taken. The customary fishing regulations (Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations 1999 and the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998) do not provide for the Crown to place limitations on customary fishing, apart from to ensure the sustainability of a particular stock. Customary take is regulated through the authorisation system in the customary regulations, which requires that all customary fishing is to be undertaken in accordance with tikanga and the overall sustainability of the fishery. 93 In most cases, there is little information on customary fishing, although this will improve as customary regulations take effect and better reporting processes are implemented. 94 In the meantime, setting appropriate customary allowances is difficult. MFish has adopted a policy that bases the customary allowance on the recreational allowance, such that: • The allowance is set at (and in some cases above) the recreational allowance for species of importance to customary users; • The allowance is set at half the recreational allowance for species known to be taken by customary fishers but are not of importance; and • No specific allowance is provided where there is no known customary catch of a species. 95 By following this approach, it is unlikely that customary take would ever exceed the allowance. Customary allowances may well be reduced if the Minister is confident that actual customary take will remain within the revised allowance. 96 In response to submissions on the 2006 IPPs, MFish agreed that it may be possible to more accurately determine customary Maori interest in specific fisheries. MFish is undertaking an examination on the way in which customary allocations are derived and to produce guidelines on how this may be better achieved over the medium term. This work is at a preliminary stage and no outputs are available to influence customary allowances at this time. Recreational allowance and the commercial allocation 97 Prior to setting the TACC, the Minister must also allow for recreational interests in the stock – an allowance must be made for recreational fishers where demand exists. 21 However, there is no requirement to provide for recreational demand in full, nor does the recreational allowance take priority over the commercial allowance. 98 In terms of those considerations the Minister is to take into account, MFish notes that s 8 of the Act, in the context of utilisation of fisheries resources, refers explicitly to the Act enabling people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. 99 Outlined below are descriptions of some of the relevant considerations that may be taken into account when allocating a TAC. This is not an exhaustive list. MFish considers that those factors which may be relevant to the exercise of the Minister’s discretion, in addition to the principles specified in s 5 (international law and Settlement Act obligations), s 8 (purpose statement), s 9 (environmental principles) and s 10 (information principles) of the Act, include, but are not limited to: a) the characteristics and current status of stock; b) the existing allocations; c) current catch levels; d) previous decisions; e) equity of allocation – notion of “shared pain” when stock declines / “shared benefit” when stock rebuilds; f) participation levels and importance of the resource, including customary values; g) population trends; h) the extent to which people’s social, economic and cultural well-being will be satisfied, both directly and indirectly; i) assessment of relative value of resource to respective sectors; j) current and past fishing practices (including overfishing, voluntary shelving or closures by a stakeholder); k) investment and initiatives undertaken to develop or enhance the resource; l) impact on ability of sector to take allocation provided; m) customary fishing rights (as confirmed by the Settlement), recreational fishers common law fishing rights, and commercial fishers property rights as quota holders; n) economic impact of allocative decisions; o) social and cultural impact of decisions; p) recreational fishers’ common law right to fish, subject to statutory limitations; and 22 q) 100 any loss of access to particular species. Information about the current status of the stock relative to the statutory target level, existing catch levels, existing allowances and catch levels, plus previous decisions may be informative of the actions that need to be taken. Proportional vs reallocative 101 Where the TAC is reduced, either TACCs and/or other allowances must also be reduced. There is no statutory obligation to undertake a proportional reduction between recreational and commercial interests. 102 The Act assigns no priority between commercial and recreational interests, except to the extent that customary and recreational non-commercial interests must be provided for to some degree where they exist. Within that framework, the Act permits the preference of one sector to the disadvantage of another; for example to provide for greater allowance for recreational interests in proportion to the commercial allocation. 103 Notwithstanding the Minister’s discretion to allocate catch, case law also considers that it is not unreasonable for commercial and recreational fishers to share some of the “pain” from a reduction in the TAC. There is no requirement that the interests of recreational or commercial fishers must be fully provided for. 104 MFish considers in situations where there is an absence of information about the relative benefits to be derived from allocating a stock to one or other sector then it is equitable for both commercial and recreational fishers to ensure the sustainability of the stock through a reduction in the TACC and recreational allowance (along with the implementation of commensurate to effect a reduction in catch – such as bag limit reductions). Equally, commercial and recreational fishers should derive shared benefit from the rebuild of a fishery in terms of the allocation provided to the respective sectors, all other things being equal. Monitoring allowances 105 If the TAC is reduced, the Minister should take reasonable steps to monitor the customary and recreational allowances so as to ensure that the level of harvest is within those allowances. To fail to do so provides a risk that any reduction to those allowances, and also the TAC, could be rendered futile. Ability to take allocation 106 Consideration should also be given to the ability of a sector to take the allowance provided. Impediments may exist that preclude the sector from exercising the full extent of their entitlement. Tools are available in the Act that enhance the ability of different sectors to exercise their right to fish. As well as implementing specific measures in support of allocative decisions, caution should be taken to ensure that a decision does result in a sector being precluded from being able to take the allowance allocated. 23 Enhancement 107 Logically those parties who are responsible for the enhancement of a resource should receive the benefit of the activity. However, the ability to ascertain the increased yield from a fishery as a result of enhancement activities and hence the extent of the allocation provided to the sector is problematic. The development of a fishery resource involves demonstrating through research and/or monitoring that an increase of catch from existing and new fisheries is sustainable. It is generally assumed that the development will occur as a result of a structured deliberate initiative. It may be possible for any one sector to develop a fishery. In such situations, it may be desirable for the sector that undertakes the development of a fishery to be entitled to be allocated the benefits of that development. Population trends 108 Population trends are reflected in the level of recreational fishing undertaken, both on a national and regional context. The growth of urban centres, in particular Auckland, have a significant impact on particular fisheries. An allowance for the recreational interest and the corresponding management controls for a stock could take into account existing population distribution and growth. Hence where a greater recreational demand arises the Minister is not precluded by any proportional rule from providing an increased allowance to the recreational entitlement subject to weighing all competing demands on the TAC (see New Zealand Fishing Industry Association (Inc) and Ors v Minister of Fisheries and Ors (CA82/97, 22/7/97) page 18). Value 109 The Minister is required to allocate the TAC in order to enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. An assessment of value is important to determine the wellbeing that will flow from any allocation decision. Where one sector values a resource more than other sectors, an allocation of the resource in favour of that sector is likely have a greater positive effect on the well-being of the participants in that sector (than an alternative allocation approach). 110 Certain fisheries are considered to be of particular value or importance to fishers. In considering the extent of the recreational and Mäori customary allowance it is appropriate to consider the nature of the species and the importance of the species to fishers. For example the recreational sector may place a particularly high value on some species of sports fish.The abundance of a species, and the availability of particular size fish for a specific stakeholder group, may be factors relevant to the Minister’s decision. 111 MFish notes that it is difficult to quantify the relative value of a resource to each sector. However, when considering value, a broad and inclusive concept of value is appropriate. The value attributed to a resource is not limited solely to financial value but a range of non-market, or qualitative, values. Impact of overfishing 112 Overfishing of a TAC may result in the subsequent reduction of that TAC. Reported overfishing by individual commercial fishers is subject to existing controls 24 under the Act. The consistent overfishing of the TACC or an allowance, which results in the reduction of the TAC, as a general principle, ought to be attributed to the stakeholder group responsible for the overfishing. Undercatch of allowance 113 Stakeholders may elect to exercise their fishing rights in a manner, which results in their allocation in a fishery being undercaught. Voluntary closures and shelving of allocation may be undertaken as a means of improving the abundance of a species and the availability of certain sized fish. Such methods may improve recruitment. In the absence of explicit shares in a fishery, any subsequent increase in the TAC as a result of such methods would be available to all stakeholders. Stakeholders are not immune from any subsequent decrease in the TAC for sustainability purposes simply on the basis of the previous undercatch of their allowance. 114 The Act does explicitly recognise underfishing rights of commercial fishers. Where the person holding annual catch entitlement for a stock (not the owner of the ITQ) undercatches the extent of their entitlement, the person may carry forward the extent of the undercatch to the second fishing year up to a maximum of 10% of the total Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) they held in the first fishing year. The carry forward of underfishing rights does not apply when the TACC is reduced in the second fishing year (s 67A(2)(b)). Analysis of impacts 115 A variation of the TACC and recreational and customary allowances may have significant social, cultural and economic implications for stakeholders and consequential downstream economic activity. In New Zealand Fishing Industry Association (Inc) and Ors v Minister of Fisheries and Ors (CA82/97, 22/7/97), the Court of Appeal noted that where a decision with major economic impact is considered necessary the rationale for that decision should be clearly transparent. Those affected ought to be able to establish that all other reasonable possibilities were analysed and that the decision adopted was the preferable option. 116 In reducing a TACC, the Minister should carefully weigh the economic impact of any such action on individual quota owners, those fishers dependent on obtaining annual catch entitlement, and on the QMS generally. However, the reduction of the TACC is not rendered unlawful simply on the basis that the decision adversely impacts the property right inherent in the QMS. In the context of fisheries legislation, a property right constitutes a right to harvest, which is subject to the Minister’s statutory powers. Accordingly, MFish considers that financial security of a property right is a valid but not irrefutable consideration in the context of the Minister’s TAC/allocative decisions. 117 The actual financial costs associated with allocative decisions are to be assessed according to the nature of the fishery. Downstream impacts may result as a consequence of allocative decisions made in respect of both recreational and commercial stakeholders. In addition to the commercial harvesting and processing sector a significant number of service industries are linked to the fishing industry, including charter operators, sale of fishing gear, repair and transport related services. Decisions may also impact on particular communities where the fishing and fishing related services provide a significant contribution to a local economy. 25 118 A cost benefit analysis is designed to act as a tool for deriving the most efficient and productive solution. In itself such an analysis is not intended to impose a barrier to implementing measures considered necessary for fisheries management purposes. In many instances MFish does not have access to the information necessary for a detailed cost benefit analysis to be undertaken. Invariably it is the stakeholders concerned who hold the relevant information. MFish requests that stakeholders provide relevant information in the course of their submissions to the Minister on management proposals. MFish endeavours to undertake a cost benefit analysis, to the extent possible with the available information, where there is likely to be a significant impact for a proposed decision All other fishing-related mortality 119 An allowance can be made for any mortality to a stock that results from fishing. This includes illegal catch, discards and incidental mortality from fishing gear. Often, little quantitative information is available to assess the level of fishing-related mortality, although inferences can be drawn from the impact associated with a particular method, or information from similar stocks or species. 120 Where quantitative estimates of other sources of fishing-related mortality are available, this is used as the basis for determining the allowance. If no estimates are available, but other sources of mortality are known to occur based on information from similar stocks or methods, then MFish generally recommends a nominal allowance. If there is no known mortality, then no allowance is made. 121 Where it is possible to determine the fishing-related mortality caused by a sector group (for example the incidental mortality related to a specific type of fishing gear used by a particular sector) then the fishing-related mortality attributable to that sector should be deducted from the allowance for that sector. Where this is not possible an estimate of other sources of fishing related mortality should be deducted from the TAC. 26 Section Two Final Advice Papers 27 ORANGE ROUGHY (ORH 3B) - FINAL ADVICE Figure 1: Quota Management Area (QMA) and sub-stock boundaries for ORH 3B Executive Summary 1 ORH 3B is a large and spatially complex fishery, comprised of several biological stocks. 1 A range of sub-stock catch limits are managed under a voluntary agreement by the Deepwater Group (DWG) which represents the owners of 97.95% of the ORH 3B quota. Monthly reports on catch by sub-stock and sub-area are provided to MFish. 2 The status of the individual sub-stocks that make up ORH 3B (Figure 1) are evaluated independently, with the results compiled to determine the status of ORH 3B as a whole. No new stock assessment information is available for the Northwest Chatham Rise, Puysegur or the Sub-Antarctic portion of ORH 3B in 2008. 2 The most recent (2006) assessment of the Northwest Chatham Rise estimated that the biomass was likely to be below the biomass that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY); Puysegur remains voluntarily closed in recognition that it is likely to be below BMSY; and there is no information on the status of the remainder of the Sub-Antarctic portion of ORH 3B. B 3 The 2008 Plenary agreed that the 2004 and 2006 model-based stock assessments for the East and the South Chatham Rise are not reliable. These assessments were set aside and existing survey and fishery information was assembled and analysed to 1 To avoid confusion, unless otherwise clarified in the text ‘stock’ refers to the QMA management unit; ‘substock’ or ‘biological stock’ refers to a biologically or geographically distinct orange roughy population; and the term ‘sub-area component’ is used where it is necessary to consider areas within sub-stock boundaries. 2 The Arrow Plateau is closed to bottom trawling by regulation under the Benthic Protected Area (BPA) initiative. 28 evaluate the stock structure and status of the East and South Chatham Rise portion of ORH 3B. 4 The Plenary concluded that for the East and South Chatham Rise: • The orange roughy found on this part of the Chatham Rise comprise a single biological stock; • The unfished biomass (B0) was estimated to be 300,000 - 450,000 t; • The best estimate of Bcurrent is 98,000 tonnes; • Current mature biomass (Bcurrent) is between 15 and 30% B0; 3 • The sub-stock is most likely below the management target (30% B0). 5 Combining the best available estimates of Bcurrent and B0 for the Northwest Chatham Rise, the East and South Chatham Rise and Puysegur suggests a B0 of the order of 450,000 t and a Bcurrent of the order of 105,000 t. On this basis the assessed portion of ORH 3B is probably of the order of 23% B0. BMSY for orange roughy stocks is estimated to be 30% B0. 6 While there is no information on the status of the Sub-Antarctic portion of ORH 3B apart from Puysegur, this part of the QMA contributes only a small percentage of the biomass of ORH 3B as a whole. Based on a simple spatial analysis of the total orange roughy catch from ORH 3B since the fishery began, the sub-stocks for which stock assessments have been undertaken have provided approximately 95-96% of the total orange roughy biomass taken from ORH 3B. It is not credible that the portions of ORH 3B that have not been assessed could contain sufficient orange roughy biomass to lift the stock as a whole to, or above, BMSY. Based on the best available information for each of the sub-stocks, the ORH 3B stock as a whole is likely to be below BMSY. 7 As no new stock assessment information is available for the Northwest Rise or the Sub-Antarctic portion of the QMA, the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) is not proposing to change the management of these parts of ORH 3B at this time. However a new management strategy is proposed for the East and South Chatham Rise. 8 The strategy is based on setting a catch limit based on the fishing mortality rate (F) 4 that will result in the sub-stock fluctuating around the biomass that will support the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). On the basis of the best available information, the FMSY-based yield is 4,410 t. This represents a 3,240 t reduction from the current catch. However, once established, and fully implemented, the strategy is likely to result in relatively small annual variations to the catch limit on the East and South Chatham Rise 3 Estimates of B0 and Bcurrent have been derived in different ways - B0 from previous stock assessments and Bcurrent using the estimated spawning biomass and the percentage of mature fish that spawn each year. In determining that the stock was likely between 15 and 30% B0 the Plenary considered all available information rather than just the best estimates of Bcurrent and B0. 4 The fishing mortality rate is the amount of fish that die each year due to fishing. B B 29 9 In making your determination on the TAC for ORH 3B, you must consider the way and rate that the ORH 3B stock is rebuilt. As the proposed reduction in the TAC would all be deducted from the East and South Chatham Rise catch limit, the focus of your way and rate decision relates to the timeframe over which the East and South Chatham Rise catch limit is reduced to the FMSY-based yield estimate to initiate a rebuild of this part of the ORH 3B stock. 10 MFish does not consider that retaining the status quo is appropriate. Given the low productivity of orange roughy stocks the biomass of the sub-stock is likely to continue to decline further below BMSY under the existing management settings. MFish does also not support an option of reducing the catch limit to 4,410 t in one year. This would impose a significant economic cost to the Industry over a short timeframe. It would also limit the flexibility to incorporate better information used to define the FMSY-based yield estimate. 11 MFish considers it appropriate to consider a staged implementation of the new strategy whereby successive annual catch limit reductions would be taken until the FMSY-based yield is reached. Such a staged approach recognises that the FMSY-based yield estimate will be refined over time. The IPP proposed two options to reach the target catch limit of 4,410 tonnes by: Option 1) Reducing the catch limit by 1,080 tonnes for each of three years; Option 2) Reducing the catch limit by 1,620 tonnes for each of two years. As new information better defines the estimate of current biomass each year, the target catch limit for the East and South Chatham Rise will change. The size of the catch limit reductions in the second and third year of IPP Option 1, and the second year of IPP Option 2, will be altered to accommodate these changes ensuring that the refined catch limit is reached within the specified timeframes. 12 Support for each of these options from submitters was essentially split by interest group. All Industry submissions supported the three year option and all submissions from environmental groups supported IPP Option 2 or greater reductions than those included in this option. 13 After considering submissions MFish recommends that you adopt a three year introduction timeframe (IPP Option 1). The primary reasons for this position are: 14 • MFish does not consider that the three year option will create an unacceptable sustainability risk for the ORH 3B stock; • There will be a greater economic impact on the Industry under the two year option; • A three year implementation timeframe will provide greater flexibility to incorporate changes to the FMSY-based yield estimates as new information on current biomass becomes available. The paper includes the following sections: i) Summary of options in the IPP and the MFish recommended option; 30 ii) Details of consultation and summary of submitters’ views; iii) A summary of the science review of the status and structure of the East and South Chatham Rise sub-stock undertaken in 2007-08; iv) An overview of the proposed management strategy and implementation; v) Rationale for the management options included in the IPP; vi) Assessment of management options against statutory requirements. Summary of Options 15 The existing management arrangements are summarised in the table below. ORH 3B Sub-Areas Northwest Chatham Rise East and South Chatham Rise East Chatham Rise Spawning Box (Jun-Aug) Northeast Chatham Rise Southeast Chatham Rise South Chatham Rise Puysegur Arrow Plateau (BPA) Sub-Antarctic Feature limit Research survey allowance TACC Other sources of fishing related mortality TAC 31 Existing catch limits (t) 750 7650 (Maximum) 6500 3200 1650 1650 (Maximum) 1750 0 0 1850 500 250 10500 525 11025 16 The management options for the 2008-09 fishing year that were proposed in the IPP are summarised in the table below. The options represent a staged transition to the new FMSY-based strategy whereby successive annual catch limit reductions would be taken until the FMSY-based yield is reached. Such a staged approach recognises that the FMSY-based yield estimate will be refined over time. The two options proposed were based on reaching a target catch limit of 4,410 tonnes by: Option 1) Reducing the catch limit by 1,080 tonnes for each of three years Option 2) Reducing the catch limit by 1,620 tonnes for each of two years ORH 3B Sub-Areas Northwest Chatham Rise East and South Chatham Rise Puysegur Arrow Plateau (BPA) Sub-Antarctic Feature limit Research survey allowance TACC Other sources of fishing related mortality TAC Catch limits (t) under IPP option 1 750 6570 0 0 1850 500 250 9420 Catch limits (t) under IPP option 2 750 6030 0 0 1850 500 250 8880 470 445 9890 9325 MFish recommended option (IPP option 1) 17 Under this option the catch limit for the East and South Chatham Rise would be reduced by 14%, or 1,080 t. Arrangements under this proposal would be to: AGREE to a) i) Reduce the TAC for ORH 3B from 11,025 tonnes to 9,890 t and the TACC from 10,500 tonnes to 9,420 tonnes; and ii) Set an allowance of 470 t for other sources of fishing related mortality; and iii) Retain zero allowances within the TAC for customary Maori and recreational fishing interests; AND b) Request that Industry implement the following sub-stock catch limits within the TACC: i) East and South Chatham Rise be reduced to 6,570 t; ii) Catch limits for the Northwest Chatham Rise, Arrow Plateau, Puysegur and Sub-Antarctic sub-areas remain unchanged and the 500 t feature limits in the Sub-Antarctic sub-area remain in place; iii) Retain a catch limit of 250 t for Industry research surveys; AND 32 c) Request that Industry continue to spread catch across ORH 3B and continue to monitor catch against voluntary catch limits; AND d) Request that Industry confirm the voluntary agreement on catch limits within ORH 3B and; • continue to submit annual updates and specific DWG annual agreements that pertain to the ORH 3B fishery to MFish; • continue to submit monthly monitoring reports pertaining to catch levels by both sub-stock and sub-area to MFish; • continue to notify MFish when catch reaches 80% of the sub-stock and sub-area limits, and notify MFish when any limit has been reached. NOTE that a) This decision initiates a three year staged transition to an FMSY-based harvest strategy for the East and South Chatham Rise whereby the annual catch limit is 4.5% of the best available estimate of current biomass. b) Further TAC changes will be necessary to alter the catch limit for the East and South Chatham Rise to the FMSY-based yield over 3 years. The quantum of the necessary catch limit changes will be derived annually and you will be provided with management advice for 1 October 2009 and 1 October 2010. c) When fully implemented the FMSY-based harvest strategy will embed the method of calculating the recommended annual catch limit for the East and South Chatham Rise. Consultation 18 Your decision whether or not to adjust the TAC for ORH 3B is a decision under section 13(2)-(4) of the Act and therefore the consultation requirements of section 12 apply. Further, in respect of your decision whether or not to adjust the TACC for ORH 3B, the consultation requirements set out in section 21(2) apply. 19 Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Mäori, environmental, commercial, and recreational interests. During the consultation period discussions were held with both Industry and ENGO representatives to explain the proposed harvest strategy for the East and South Chatham Rise. Submissions Received 20 Submissions regarding this proposal were received from: • Deepwater Group Ltd. (DWG); • Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc. (ECO); 33 21 • New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd. (SeaFIC); • Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc (Forest & Bird); • Sanford Ltd. (Sanford). While little new information was provided through the submission process, clear positions were established as to submitters’ preferred options. The views expressed by submitters fall into two broad categories – that taken by Industry and that by the environmental non-government organisations (ENGOs). It is of note however that the preferred options for each of these stakeholder groups are significantly closer than in previous years. Specific TAC and catch spreading arrangements supported by submitters are summarised in the table below. Status quo Sub-stocks and subarea component Industry Environmental NGOs DWG, SeaFIC and Sanford (option 1) F&B (optio n 2) ECO 750 750 750 t 410 t 7,650 6,500 (max) 3,200 1,650 1,650 1,750 (max) 0t 6,570 ------ 6,030 -50% (max) ---- 0t 0t Under 6,000 t -3,000 t (max) ---0t Arrow Plateau 0t 0t 0t 0t Sub-Antarctic Feature limit 1,850 t 500 t 1,850 t 500 t 1,850 t 500 t Research survey allowance TACC TAC 250 t 250 t 250 t 1,300 t 100150 t 250 t 10,500 11,025 9,420 9,890 8,880 t 9,325 t 7,960 t 8,405 t Northwest Chatham Rise East and South Chatham Rise East Chatham Rise Spawning box NE Chatham Rise Southeast Chatham Rise South Chatham Rise Puysegur 22 All submitters either explicitly or implicitly support the rejection of the model-based stock assessments for the East and South Chatham Rise and adoption of the proposed FMSY-based harvest strategy. 23 Industry submitters (DWG, Sanford and SeaFIC) all support a three year reduction to the FMSY-based catch limit (IPP Option 1). ENGO submitters on the other hand support a faster reduction with Forest & Bird supporting IPP Option 2 and ECO supporting a greater reduction to the catch limit for the East and South Chatham Rise than that proposed under this option. 24 All submitters apart from ECO support the status quo for the other sub-stocks that make up ORH 3B. ECO supports reductions to the catch limits on the Northwest Chatham Rise and the Sub-Antarctic. 25 Both Forest & Bird and ECO consider that environmental effects were not adequately addressed in the IPP, particularly in relation to the impact of bottom trawling on 34 benthic organisms and assemblages. Forest & Bird also expressed concern at fish and shark bycatch and requested that the FAP include information on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) threat status of these bycatch species (Appendix 4). 26 Specific comments provided by submitters are included where relevant in the body of the FAP. Background Science review 27 The MFish Chief Scientist briefed you in September 2007 on the status of Chatham Rise orange roughy. This briefing described the 2004 and 2006 model-based stock assessments for the East and the South Chatham Rise as “not credible” and concluded that: “The Chief Scientist, along with many other members of the FAWG [Deepwater Fisheries Assessment Working Group], believes it is time to abandon the [previous] models for the East Chatham Rise and the South Chatham Rise as the key assessment and management tools, and to instead focus on model-independent analyses of the data at hand”. 28 In your decision letter on sustainability measures introduced on 1 October 2007, you requested that existing survey and fishery information be assembled and analysed to “provide a more credible evaluation of the status of the East and South Chatham Rise orange roughy stocks”. This work was undertaken and presented to the 2008 Plenary. Sub-stock structure 29 Before reviewing stock status, the sub-stock structure of orange roughy on the Chatham Rise was comprehensively reviewed. The approach evaluated all available data including: catch distribution and catch per unit effort (CPUE) patterns; location of spawning and nursery areas; inferred migrations; size, maturity and condition data; genetic studies; and habitat and natural boundaries. 30 The Plenary agreed that it is most likely that the Northwest Chatham Rise is a separate biological stock, and that the East and South Chatham Rise is a single biological stock. This represents a change from the previous stock assessment boundaries that partitioned the East and South Chatham Rise into four sub-area components: the Spawning Box and Eastern Flats, the Northeast Hills, the Andes, and the South Chatham Rise. 31 Spatial partitioning of the ORH 3B stock used in this paper reflects the stock structure agreed by the Plenary in 2008 and is shown in Figure 1. Stock status 32 The status of the Northwest Chatham Rise, Puysegur and Sub-Antarctic components of the ORH 3B stock were not reviewed by either the FAWG or the Plenary in 2008 35 and the Arrow Plateau is closed to bottom trawling under the Benthic Protected Areas (BPA) initiative. 33 The Plenary Report states that the previous stock assessments for the East and South Chatham Rise are no longer considered reliable for two reasons. First, the accepted stock structure for this part of the Chatham Rise has changed and second, that the rebuild predicted by those assessments was largely driven by model assumptions about incoming recruitment, rather than actual data. 34 Analyses of the main observational data were reviewed by the Plenary to draw conclusions on the likely status of this sub-stock. The data considered included: research trawl surveys; acoustic surveys of the Plume and background areas; catch patterns; and standardised CPUE. The main conclusions of the 2008 Plenary regarding the East and South Chatham Rise are: a. The unfished biomass (B0) is estimated to have been between 300,000 t and 450,000 t; b. The spawning stock was likely to have been reduced to 30% of this level by the early 1990s. There is no clear evidence of rebuilding after the early 1990s; instead, there are indications that it may have continued to be reduced in size due to fishing; c. The current estimate of the status of the sub-stock is most likely below the management target (30% B0); d. The best estimate of Bcurrent is 98,000 tonnes; e. The current total mature biomass (Bcurrent) is thought to be between 15% and 30% B0. 5 B 35 The Plenary Report concludes that the East and South Chatham Rise sub-stock is likely to have been fished to below BMSY and that the current fishing mortality rate (F) is continuing to fish down the sub-stock. With the rejection of the existing stock assessment models for the East and South Chatham Rise, a new strategy for managing this fishery is required. The proposed management strategy for the East and South Chatham Rise 36 The proposed new management strategy is based on setting a catch limit based on the fishing mortality (F) that, if applied constantly, would result in the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). Under this FMSY-based management strategy, the same proportion of the biomass will be taken from the East and South Chatham Rise substock each year. If the sub-stock is above BMSY, the amount taken will be higher than if the sub-stock was below BMSY, resulting in the sub-stock being fished down 5 Estimates of B0 and Bcurrent have been derived in different ways - B0 from previous stock assessments and Bcurrent using the estimated spawning biomass and the percentage of mature fish that spawn each year. In determining that the stock was likely between 15 and 30% B0 the Plenary considered all available information rather than just the best estimates of Bcurrent and B0. B B 36 towards the target level. Conversely, if the sub-stock is below BMSY the amount taken will be lower, allowing the sub-stock to rebuild. 6 37 38 The strategy will embed the method of calculating the recommended annual catch limit for the East and South Chatham Rise. The three step process for determining the catch limit under the FMSY-based strategy is summarised as follows: i) The biomass of spawning fish on the East and South Chatham Rise is estimated by summing the best available estimates of the biomass of known spawning aggregations across the East and South Chatham Rise (Bspawn); ii) Bspawn is multiplied by the best available estimate of the percentage of fish that spawn every year (the multiplier) to estimate current biomass (Bcurrent); iii) Bcurrent is multiplied by FMSY to determine the catch limit. B B There are four key components to the FMSY strategy: i) An estimate of FMSY; ii) An annual estimate of current biomass (Bcurrent); iii) A research programme to better inform the Bcurrent estimate; iv) A Fisheries Plan. Estimating FMSY 39 An estimate of FMSY equal to the level of natural mortality (M) has been proposed for implementing the proposed strategy for the East and South Chatham Rise. This approach accords with international best practice and is consistent with the draft Harvest Strategy Standard, which has been consulted on with stakeholders. Estimating Bcurrent 40 Annual estimates of Bcurrent will be determined by the FAWG and presented at the Plenary. 41 The best estimate of Bcurrent available is derived by scaling up the estimated spawning biomass (Bspawn) by the proportion of the mature biomass that joins the spawning aggregations each year (the multiplier). 42 Spawning is known to occur primarily in the Plume with additional smaller spawning aggregations forming in other localities across the East and South Chatham Rise. An acoustic survey of the Plume is undertaken annually to provide an estimate of spawning biomass on this part of the Chatham Rise. Estimates of spawning biomass in other areas of the East and South Chatham Rise have been derived from existing survey data. These data have been collected sporadically and the estimates are less 6 This is the case provided that the stock has not been reduced to a level where ‘depensatory effects’ are evident. Depensatory effects occur when a population level becomes very low, and may include fundamental changes in the biology or behaviour of the species, such as the inability to spawn or the inability of individuals to find mates. This effect inhibits a population from rebuilding back to former levels. 37 well defined at this time. The best estimate of spawning biomass is obtained by summing the best estimates of biomass from all known spawning aggregations. 43 There have been a number of studies, both in New Zealand and elsewhere, that have considered the percentage of mature orange roughy that spawn each year. A range for the multiplier has been derived from a review of the available studies. Research programme to better define Bcurrent 44 While there is an accepted estimate of spawning biomass in the Plume, there remains considerable uncertainty surrounding the spawning biomass in other parts of the East and South Chatham Rise. There is also uncertainty as to the proportion of mature orange roughy that spawn each year. A research plan designed to reduce key areas of uncertainty in the estimates of spawning biomass and the multiplier is a key component of the management strategy. Fisheries Plan 45 A Fisheries Plan for the East and South Rise orange roughy fishery is being developed by MFish in consultation with Industry and ENGO representatives. Initial meetings have already been held with each of these sector groups. 46 The Fisheries Plan contemplates a more transparent and straightforward management process. It will set out the management objectives, the key elements of the management strategy and the supporting research, information and monitoring requirements. 47 Dependent on your decision, the Plan will explicitly prescribe the management transition to full implementation of the FMSY-based approach. This will ensure that all parties understand the rationale, what changes are required and when these will be introduced. Summary 48 In summary the best available information estimates that the current biomass of orange roughy on the East and South Chatham Rise is below BMSY; and the current fishing mortality rate (Fcurrent) is above FMSY. It is now time to put in place a longterm, sustainable management strategy for the East and South Chatham Rise orange roughy fishery. MFish proposes to embed in the fisheries plan a strategy to determine catch limits for the East and South Chatham Rise by setting the fishing mortality rate (F) to a level that will result in the biomass of the sub-stock averaging the biomass that can support the maximum sustainable yield over the long term (FMSY). 49 Your decision for the 2008-09 fishing year represents the first step in the transition to an FMSY-based approach. 38 Rationale for proposed management options Status of the East and South Chatham Rise sub-stock 50 The Plenary has considered the location of stock assessment and management boundaries on the Chatham Rise and has agreed that the East and South Chatham Rise should be considered as a single sub-stock. Both options reflect the revised stock structure with no distinction made between the East Chatham Rise and the South Chatham Rise. 51 The Plenary concluded that the East and South Chatham Rise sub-stock is likely to be below the management target of 30% B0, and therefore needs to be rebuilt. Setting the catch limit through the application of an FMSY approach (by setting the catch limit equal to FMSY multiplied by the current biomass) will effect this rebuild. Management options proposed in the IPP initiate a transition to such an FMSY–based approach over two or three years. 52 The Plenary agreed that it was appropriate to estimate current biomass (Bcurrent) by collating the best available information on the size of the current spawning biomass across the East and South Chatham Rise and scaling this figure up by the ratio of total mature biomass to spawning biomass (the multiplier) considered typical of orange roughy stocks. An appropriate range for the multiplier was derived from a literature search. Although acknowledging uncertainty in both the estimates of current spawning biomass and the multiplier, the Plenary agreed that, based on the best available information, Bcurrent was likely to be in the range 15 to 30% B0 with a best estimate of 98,000 t. 53 Of the two submissions that commented on the status of the sub-stock both SeaFIC and ECO acknowledge that for orange roughy BMSY is currently assumed to be 30%B0. SeaFIC agrees with the likely range of 15-30% B0 and the statements that current biomass is likely or probably below BMSY. ECO considers that the sub-stock is likely to be closer to 20% than 30% B0. Management strategy settings 54 The FMSY-based approach has been discussed with fisheries scientists, Industry and environmental NGO representatives. Feedback received to date suggests a broad level of support for the approach and no submissions were received opposing its implementation. SeaFIC notes that although your decision this year will initiate a transition to an FMSY-based harvest strategy for the East and South Chatham Rise, further details of the operation of the strategy will be developed and implemented through a fisheries plan. SeaFIC considers that clarification of how the strategy will be implemented through the fisheries plan process is critical to provide stability and certainty for stakeholders. 55 A key component of the strategy is the definition of FMSY. The IPP proposed setting FMSY equal to the natural mortality (M). This position is supported by MFish Science and submissions from SeaFIC, Sanford and DWG. Discussions with ECO and Forest & Bird suggest their support for a more precautionary approach although no alternative figures were provided through submissions. On the basis of scientific advice that using FMSY equals M accords with international best practice and is 39 compatible with the draft Harvest Strategy Standard, it is considered appropriate that M is used as a proxy for FMSY. 56 A research and monitoring programme is being developed to improve estimates of Bcurrent by reducing uncertainty in both the estimates of spawning biomass and the multiplier. As the results of this programme become available they will be reviewed by the FAWG and the Plenary, enabling better estimation of Bcurrent, and FMSY-based yield in future years. While there remains uncertainty surrounding the level of sustainable catch that this process will ultimately settle on, it is clear that the estimated sustainable catch will change as new information comes to hand. B Implementation of strategy 57 MFish does not consider that retaining the status quo is appropriate. Given the low productivity of orange roughy stocks the biomass of the stock is likely to continue to decline further below BMSY under the existing management settings. 58 MFish proposed in the IPP that an appropriate way and rate to move the sub-stock to at or above the level that can produce MSY is to embark on a series of reductions until the FMSY level is reached. Under IPP option 1 the catch limit will equal the FMSYbased yield estimate by 1 October 2010 (i.e. the catch limit will be reduced to the FMSY-based yield estimate in three steps). IPP Option 2 will result in the catch limit equalling the FMSY-based yield estimate by 1 October 2009 (i.e. the catch limit will be reduced to the FMSY-based yield estimate in two steps). 59 The proposed reductions in the catch limit under both options are predicated on the FMSY-based yield remaining at 4,410 t. As noted above the yield estimate is likely to change as new information from the research programme comes to hand. The adjustments to the catch limit on the East and South Chatham Rise in years two and three (under the three year option) and year two (under the two year option) will be revised each year to ensure that the catch limit equals the updated FMSY-based yield at the end of the implementation timeframe. 60 The catch limit will remain above the FMSY-based yield until 1 October 2010 under option 1 and until 1 October 2009 under option 2, and the East and South Chatham Rise sub-stock is likely to continue to decline until the FMSY-based yield is met. In the IPP MFish did not support an option of reducing the catch limit to 4,410 t in one year on the basis that this would impose a significant economic cost to the Industry over a short timeframe. 61 MFish proposes that the Bcurrent estimate used in calculating the appropriate catch limit should generally be the average of the three most recent Bcurrent estimates. This will smooth out annual fluctuations and is likely to result in smaller year to year variations to the recommended catch limit on the East and South Chatham Rise. 40 Assessment of Management Options Considerations at the stock (QMA) level Total allowable catch Section 13 (2) 62 ORH 3B is managed under section 13 of the Act which requires that you set a TAC that will result in the stock being restored to or above, or maintains the stock at or above, a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY 7 ). 63 Stock assessment information reported in the Fisheries Assessment Plenary (the Plenary) considers ORH 3B by sub-stock – specifically the Northwest Chatham Rise, the East and South Chatham Rise, and the Sub-Antarctic (Arrow Plateau, Puysegur, Pukaki South and the remaining southern areas). The status of ORH 3B in relation to BMSY is determined by considering the status of each sub-stock separately and then combining these assessments together to get a picture of the stock as whole. B 64 65 66 Status of the Northwest Chatham Rise sub-stock The status of the Northwest Chatham Rise is based on the assessment conducted in 2006. The Plenary noted that this assessment is uncertain because the estimated status of the Northwest Chatham Rise was strongly dependent on the CPUE data for the flat areas and the extent to which these data index the entire sub-stock is unknown. Model runs that included all data estimated that the biomass was below BMSY at 11% (range 8-16%) B0. Bcurrent was estimated to be 6,000 t (range 4,200-9,300 t) and B0 was estimated as 55,000 t (range 51,400-59,500 t). In 2006 you decreased the catch limit for the Northwest Chatham Rise from 1,500 to 750 tonnes, which was assessed to be the level that would allow the sub-stock to rebuild. Status of the East and South Chatham Rise sub-stock While no new model-based assessments were available in 2008 the Plenary evaluated the status of the East and South Chatham Rise sub-stock using available data sources. The Plenary concluded that the sub-stock was likely to be below BMSY and in the range 15-30% B0. Bcurrent was estimated to be 98,000 (48,000-168,000) and B0 was estimated to be in the range 300,000 – 450,000 t. 8 Status of the Sub-Antarctic (including the Arrow Plateau) sub-stock The Sub-Antarctic portion of ORH 3B consists of 10 areas. 9 The catch from each area has varied over the years with only Priceless and North Pukaki still contributing reasonable catches. To date the only Sub-Antarctic area for which a stock assessment has been completed is Puysegur. The 2008 Plenary reported that the status of this sub-stock remains unchanged from that accepted by the 1998 Plenary. That report states that Bcurrent is estimated as being 1,100 t and B0 as 17,000 t. Puysegur remains voluntarily closed in recognition that it is likely to be below BMSY at 7% B0. 7 BMSY for orange roughy stocks is estimated to be 30% B0. Estimates of B0 and Bcurrent have been derived in different ways - B0 from previous stock assessments and Bcurrent using the estimated spawning biomass and information on the percentage of mature fish that spawn each year. 9 Auckland, Arrow, Antipodes, Priceless, North Pukaki, Bounty, Macquarie, Puysegur, Fiordland, and Snares. 8 B 41 67 Based on the best available information these sub-stocks are all below the biomass that can support the maximum sustainable yield. Combining the best available estimates of Bcurrent and B0 for the Northwest Chatham Rise, the East and South Chatham Rise and Puysegur suggests a B0 of the order of 450,000 t and a Bcurrent of the order of 105,000 t. On this basis the assessed portion of ORH 3B is probably of the order of 23% B0. BMSY for orange roughy stocks is estimated to be 30% B0. 68 While there is no information on the status of the Sub-Antarctic portion of ORH 3B apart from Puysegur, this part of the QMA contributes only a small percentage of the biomass of ORH 3B as a whole. This is supported by a simple analysis of the total orange roughy catch that has been taken from the various sub areas that have made make up ORH 3B since the fishery began. Analysis of catch data 10 shows that 77% (415,000 t) of the total catch has come from the East and South Chatham Rise; 15% (78,000 t) has come from the Northwest Chatham Rise; and the Sub-Antarctic and Arrow Plateau has provided the remaining 8% (44,000 t). Of this 44,000 t, approximately 45% has come from Puysegur. 69 70 Status of the ORH 3B stock as a whole On the basis of these figures, the sub-stocks for which stock assessments have been undertaken have provided approximately 95-96% of the total orange roughy biomass taken from ORH 3B since the fishery began. It is not credible that the portions of ORH 3B that have not been assessed could contain sufficient orange roughy biomass to lift the stock as a whole to, or above, BMSY. You should therefore set the TAC for ORH 3B under section 13(2)(b) of the Act. Section 13(2)(b) is appropriate in cases where the stock biomass is likely to be below BMSY and requires a TAC that restores a stock biomass towards a level that is at or above a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, having regard to the interdependence of stocks, biological characteristics and environmental conditions. B 71 MFish does not consider that retaining the status quo is appropriate. Given the low productivity of orange roughy stocks, the biomass of the stock is likely to continue to decline further below BMSY under the existing management settings. 72 MFish proposes to introduce an FMSY-based harvest strategy for the East and South Chatham Rise component of ORH 3B. On the basis of the best available information, implementation of this strategy will result in a reduction of the catch limit for this portion of the ORH 3B stock from 7,650 tonnes to 4,410 tonnes. Once implemented, the FMSY-based harvest strategy by definition will result in the stock moving towards the level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. Section 13 (3) 73 Section 13 (3) requires that, in considering the way and the rate that the stock may be moved towards a level that can produce MSY under s 13(2)(b), you shall have regard to such social, cultural and economic factors as you consider relevant. 10 Dunn, M. (2008) Draft descriptive analysis of catch and effort data from New Zealand orange roughy fisheries in ORH 3B to the end of the 2006-07 fishing year. 42 74 Option 1 in the IPP proposed a reduction in the TACC of 1,080 t. A conservative estimate of the landed value of 1,080 t of orange roughy derived from the 2006-07 port price in ORH 3B equates to a value of $3.2 million. The majority of orange roughy is exported so a better estimation of value may be derived from export earnings. On the basis of the export value of the most common product state exported, 11 1,080 t of orange roughy is worth approximately $3.9 million. 75 Option 2 in the IPP proposed a reduction in the TACC of 1,620 t. A conservative estimate of the landed value of 1,620 t of orange roughy derived from the 2006-07 port price in ORH 3B equates to a value of $4.9 million. The majority of orange roughy is exported so a better estimation of value may be derived from export earnings. On the basis of the export value of the most common product state exported 12 , 1,620 t of orange roughy is worth approximately $5.8 million. TACC and Allowances 76 The TAC must be apportioned between the relevant sectors and interests set out under the provisions of s 20 and s 21 of the Act. Section 21 prescribes that you shall make allowances for Maori customary non-commercial interests, recreational fishing interests, and for any other sources of fishing-related mortality, before setting the TACC. In determining these allowances, you should consider how the allowances will enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing (as provided for in the purpose of the Act). 77 There are no known Maori customary or recreational fisheries for orange roughy. MFish proposes that you set allowances of zero tonnes for recreational and Mäori customary fishing under both options. This is consistent with the approach that has been adopted since orange roughy became a QMS species in 1986. 78 Other sources of fishing-related mortality has been previously set at 5% of the TACC to account for lost fish, discards etc. There is no information to support a variation to this figure at this time. Considerations at the sub-stock level 79 Proposed sub-stock and sub-area 13 voluntary catch limits for the 2008-09 fishing year are discussed below. MFish recommends that these catch limits and reporting requirements continue to be managed by DWG. Under both options MFish will monitor DWG reports and operators’ fishing patterns to evaluate the effectiveness of these voluntary catch limits. MFish will ensure that, through joint MFish-DWG communications, operators are fully informed as to the progress of catch taken against sub-stock and sub-area limits. East and South Chatham Rise 80 11 12 13 Without a clear understanding of recruitment it is not possible to determine the rebuild rate of orange roughy stocks, although lower catch limits will initiate a rebuild faster Based on final FOB export figures for December 2007 Based on final FOB export figures for December 2007 The sub-stock boundaries are defined in Appendix 2. 43 than higher catch limits. The research programme will incorporate annual plume surveys plus additional work to better define the mature orange roughy biomass on the East and South Chatham Rise. The quantum of further reductions to the TAC will be determined annually when the methods for determining current mature biomass have been better developed. MFish considers that a staged approach to reducing the TAC, given uncertainty in available information at the present time, is appropriate having regard to relevant economic factors. 81 MFish requested that Industry, through the submission process, provide any additional information on social, cultural and economic factors relevant to this decision. All three Industry submissions supported option 1 of the IPP to reduce the TAC to include the FMSY-based yield estimate for the East and South Chatham Rise over three years. 82 Sanford supports reducing the catch limit for the East and South Chatham Rise to ensure the long term sustainability of the ORH 3B fishery but express a preference for a slower reduction in catch. SeaFIC considers that there is no urgency to reduce fishing mortality too severely but that there is a need to start a reduction both to bring the catch limit into line with the proposed FMSY-based harvest strategy and to meet statutory obligations under s 13 of the Act. SeaFIC also notes that as stated in the IPP, estimates of Bcurrent will be updated regularly and the catch limit target may therefore change as FMSY is approached. Implicit in their submission is that a slower staged reduction of F to FMSY will provide greater flexibility to incorporate these changes – either up or down – as they become apparent. 83 DWG supports the SeaFIC position and argues that in its view estimates of Bcurrent will likely increase as more information becomes available. Specifically DWG submits that estimates of spawning biomass in the 2008 Plenary report for the NE Hills (700 tonnes), Mt Muck (1,500 tonnes), Andes (2,400 tonnes) and the South Chatham Rise (2,400 tonnes) are very conservative. DWG bases its position on Industry survey estimates in 2003, 2006 and 2008 that suggests that biomass on Mt Muck and the NE Hills may be considerably higher than estimates presented in the Plenary report. 84 Both Forest & Bird and ECO support a faster reduction than Industry on the basis that orange roughy are vulnerable to overfishing, recruitment concerns and the view that there are no known spawning aggregations on the South Chatham Rise. Forest & Bird supports IPP Option 2 while ECO supports a slightly larger reduction than that proposed under IPP Option 2 on the basis that there is no known spawning area on the South Chatham Rise and its contention that fish in this area are likely to spawn on hill features on the East Chatham Rise. 85 MFish accepts that information on the biomass present outside the spawning plume is uncertain although historically spawning fish have been recorded on numerous features across the East and South Chatham Rise as shown by the map in Appendix 2. However, it is not possible at the present time to quantify the spawning biomass on these features or even to determine whether spawning fish still aggregate on these features. 86 ECO’s reference to recruitment concerns relates to information considered by the Plenary in 2008 that suggests that the minimum size of observed orange roughy in trawl surveys may have increased in recent years. If real, this suggests that recruitment has been poor or absent at the bottom end of the observed length range. It 44 is estimated that fish of this size would reach the spawning stock and the fishery in about 11 years. The Plenary states that further surveys would be required to determine whether the drop in recruitment is real. 87 Although uncertain, the Plenary report stands as the best available information as to the current orange roughy biomass on the East and South Chatham Rise. MFish proposes that the FMSY-based catch limit target of 4,410 tonnes should stand as the management target until better information is available to refine biomass estimates. 88 MFish does not, however, consider that there is an immediate concern for the longterm sustainability of the East and South Chatham Rise sub-stock if a three year rather than two year timetable is adopted for the implementation of the FMSY-based harvest strategy. MFish recognises that imposing TAC reductions over a two year timeframe will have a greater economic impact on the Industry than the three year timeframe. 89 Given the significant economic cost of implementing the strategy MFish recommend that for the East and South Chatham Rise: i) The FMSY-based harvest strategy is adopted; ii) In the absence of new information the target catch limit is 4,410 tonnes; iii) The catch limit is reduced to the FMSY-based catch limit over three years; iv) As new information on Bcurrent becomes available the FMSY-based catch limit will be revised. You or your successor will be provided with advice in 2009 and 2010 recommending changes to the TAC to complete the phased introduction of the FMSY-based strategy based on these revised estimates. Northwest Chatham Rise 90 In 2006 you decreased the catch limit for the Northwest Chatham Rise from 1,500 to 750 tonnes, which was assessed to be the level that would allow the sub-stock to rebuild. 91 In their recent submission, ECO has repeated the argument made in their 2006 and 2007 submissions in support of a catch reduction to, or below, the CAY estimate for 2007 of 410 tonnes. The ECO position was considered in making your 2006 decision on the appropriate catch limit for the Northwest Chatham Rise. MFish considers that the 2006 decision was appropriate and in the absence of new stock assessment information, does not consider that you should vary the current management arrangements for this sub-stock at this time. 92 MFish recommends retaining the existing catch limit for the Northwest Chatham Rise. Arrow Plateau 93 The Arrow Plateau has been closed to bottom trawling by regulation under the Benthic Protected Areas (BPA) initiative and the catch limit for this portion of the stock will remain at zero. 45 Puysegur 94 The fishery has been voluntarily closed since 1997-98 and MFish does not recommend varying this position at this time. Sub-Antarctic 95 The catch limit for the Sub-Antarctic was increased in 2006 to 1,850 t on the basis of the 2006 stock assessment and no new information is available at the sub-stock scale to suggest that this limit should be reviewed. Industry supports retention of the existing catch level. ECO repeats its submission from 2007 that there is no evidence that the Sub-Antarctic fishery is sustainable and it considers that the existing catch limit implies an unrealistically large sub-stock size given an absence of large spawning aggregations in this area. ECO also notes that declines in the Priceless CPUE and significant catch reductions in the East Pukaki fishery in support of its contention that the Sub-Antarctic catch limit should be reduced to below 1,300 t. Priceless and East Pukaki are sub-areas within the Sun-Antarctic portion of ORH 3B. 96 MFish considers that your 2006 decisions remain appropriate. In the absence of new stock assessment information, MFish does not propose varying the current management arrangements at this time. ECO’s concerns over CPUE indices at spatial scales below that of the sub-stock level are discussed below. 97 MFish recommends retaining the existing catch limit for the Sub-Antarctic. Considerations at the sub-area component level 98 The sub-area component boundaries are defined in Appendix 3. East and South Chatham Rise 99 The IPP proposed setting a limit of 50% on the percentage of the East and South Chatham Rise that could be taken from the main spawning plume. 100 SeaFIC sees no rationale in further restricting the East and South Chatham Rise catch by constraining removals from the Plume. It notes that the fleet targeting orange roughy on the East and South Chatham Rise is now restricted to only two or three vessels and that for market reasons fishing occurs throughout the year. SeaFIC contends that in practice the proposed limit will not be exceeded and given there is no explicit rationale defined in the IPP they do not support the proposed measure. 101 DWG also does not agree to the proposed measure but agrees to deliver catch outcomes that will result in less than 50% of the East and South Chatham Rise catch limit being taken from the spawning plume. 102 Neither Forest & Bird nor ECO discuss the proposed limit in their submissions although ECO includes a spawning box limit in their preferred option. Forest & Bird also expressed support for retention of a catch limit on spawning fish in discussions with MFish. 103 MFish notes that sub-area catch limits are voluntary and that the DWG has agreed to deliver catch outcomes that meet or exceed the proposal. MFish also acknowledges 46 that, as noted by SeaFIC, the DWG submission aligns with market requirements for orange roughy product supply throughout the year. MFish does not therefore recommend the formal adoption of a limit on catch that can be taken from the plume. 104 MFish undertakes to monitor catch from the plume. Sub-Antarctic sub-area limits 105 A 500 tonne feature limit is in place in the Sub-Antarctic portion of ORH 3B. MFish is notified when 80% of a feature limit is taken and a feature is closed once its feature limit is reached. As in its 2007 submission ECO supports a reduction in feature limits closer to that provided in ORH 1 of 100-150 t. 106 Feature limits in ORH 1 are set as a standard size and apply to a circle of 10nm radius around individual features (such as hills, knolls etc.). In contrast Sub-Antarctic features consist of feature complexes and these have been gridded into squares with an area of 100 nm2 each (see Appendix 5). The 500 tonne feature limit applies to each of these squares. While not directly comparable to the feature limit arrangements in ORH 1, MFish considers that the feature limits and reporting framework are operating effectively to spread catch across Sub-Antarctic features. In the absence of new stock assessment information, MFish does not propose varying the current management arrangements at this time. 107 MFish will continue to monitor DWG reports against reported catch and to monitor operators’ fishing patterns to evaluate the effectiveness of voluntary catch limits in 2008-09. MFish will also ensure that, through joint MFish-DWG communications, operators are fully informed as to the progress of catch taken against the SubAntarctic feature limits. Environmental considerations 108 MFish is in the process of developing environmental standards – including a seabird standard and a benthic impact standard - to ensure that statutory obligations to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of fishing are met. These standards will ultimately be used to inform fisheries plan development. 109 Key environmental issues in relation to the ORH 3B fishery and the options proposed in this paper are discussed below. Finfish and shark bycatch 110 Both ECO and Forest & Bird express concern at the impact of orange roughy fishing on non-target fish species. Specifically Forest & Bird requests that the number and species (including IUCN threat status) of non-target catch should be specified. 111 Information on the catch of the top 50 bycatch species from orange roughy fisheries is included in Appendix 4. This information relates to the fishing years 1999-2004 and is compiled from observer data. 14 Those species with an IUCN listing are 14 Anderson, O.F. Fish discards and non-target fish catch in the New Zealand orange roughy trawl fishery: 1999-2000 to 2004-05. Draft report to the Aquatic Environment Working Group.39 p. 47 highlighted. There are a number of generic codes included in this table so it is not possible to compile a full list of species. However of the species listed, eight species of sharks or chimaeras have an IUCN listing. Of these 5 have an IUCN status of least concern, one as near threatened (Plunket’s shark) and two are listed as vulnerable (basking shark and spiny dogfish). 112 A specific national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks is in preparation by MFish. This plan proposes protection of basking shark. The IUCN status of spiny dogfish is largely driven by concerns over European stocks. Nonetheless the NPOA-Sharks proposes an evaluation of management measures currently in place for spiny dogfish in New Zealand. 113 Plunket’s shark is a relatively uncommon shark found in south-eastern Australia, New Zealand and south-Eastern Africa. Its depth range is 200m to 1,500m although most commonly found below 500m. The aggregating behaviour of Plunket’s shark makes it susceptible to localised depletion and there is concern that larger females may be found at the deeper extent of its depth range which overlaps with the orange roughy fishery. The IUCN Red List states that ‘any increases in catches from increasing deepwater fisheries should be viewed with concern’. MFish notes that initiatives already undertaken in ORH 3B, including a reduction in vessels and effort, will likely limit interactions with this species. The TAC reduction proposed in this paper will further limit such interactions. It is also of note that there is a large part of both the geographic and depth range of this species that is outside ORH 3B and some areas of the likely range for this species are protected from bottom trawling under the BPA Initiative. MFish will continue to monitor catches of this species. 114 While a number of deepwater finfish species that share similar habitat to orange roughy are taken in the ORH 3B fishery (including black, smooth and spiky oreo, black cardinal fish and alfonsino) targeted orange roughy fishing historically captures over 90% orange roughy (by greenweight). No increase in the orange roughy TAC is contemplated and consequently there should be no additional adverse implications for fish or shark bycatch. Marine mammals 115 There is a low level of interaction between marine mammals and deepwater trawl vessels generally and there have been 4 observed fur seal deaths associated with these fisheries for the period 2004-2007. All of these captures occurred in the SubAntarctic deepwater trawl fisheries. 116 MFish considers that the management proposal will have no additional adverse implications for fur seals and other marine mammals as none of the options should result in an increase in fishing effort. Seabirds 117 While trawl fisheries for orange roughy are known to interact with seabirds, and fishing-related mortalities of seabird species are known to occur, orange roughy fisheries are considered to pose relatively low risk to seabirds compared to other fisheries. Analysis of seabird interactions with vessels targeting orange roughy was undertaken by the Department of Conservation in 2008 (Appendix 5). This study 48 found that there is a low number of interactions with seabirds in the deepwater trawl fisheries generally. 118 The few vessels that dominate the catch in ORH 3B apply mitigation measures ranging from on-board meal plants (one vessel), batch discarding (all vessels) and back of the boat mitigation measures (all vessels). Consequently the level of interaction and fishing related mortality is considered to be low for the vessels that fish in ORH 3B. 119 It is difficult to quantify the overall impact as knowledge of the population characteristics of seabird species is typically limited. It is known however that the Chatham Rise and Sub-Antarctic regions are areas of vulnerable and threatened seabird species such as the Chatham Island Albatross and the Chatham Petrel (the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) status is critically endangered); the Northern and Southern Royal Albatross (IUCN status is endangered and vulnerable respectively); and the Salvin’s Albatross (IUCN status is vulnerable). 120 The management proposal should have no additional adverse implications for seabirds as no increase in orange roughy catch entitlements is proposed. Benthic impacts and coral bycatch 121 Bottom trawling can affect fragile benthic invertebrate communities but adverse effects may be reduced if vessels repeatedly trawl along the same towlines in a fishery. There are cost implications for Industry in terms of lost or damaged gear when fishing in new areas. As a consequence Industry generally follows known trawl tracks on the Chatham Rise. Nonetheless benthic organisms and assemblages are taken by bottom trawls targeting orange roughy and observed coral bycatch for the period 1 July 2004-30 June 2007 is summarised in Appendix 5. 122 Two initiatives are in place to address benthic impacts generally. In 2001 you regulated a trawl closure covering a selection of 19 seamounts of varying size and depth within New Zealand. In 2007 you then closed 17 further areas, covering approximately 1.2 million square kilometres, to bottom trawling by regulation under the BPA Initiative. The map in Appendix 7 shows the location of the BPA and seamount closures within the ORH 3B QMA. The map also shows the areas of potential orange roughy habitat based on depth alone (i.e. the area between 750m and 1500m depth). For the whole of the QMA 15% of this area falls within either BPAs or seamount closures. The distribution of these closed areas is skewed towards the Sub-Antarctic parts of the QMA with 2.9% of the area between 750 and 1500m deep on the Chatham Rise closed to trawling. 123 Further analysis of benthic habitats, the footprint of the orange roughy fishery and areas that are already protected will be advanced through the fisheries plan. Compliance implications 124 Key offences that may occur in ORH 3B include misreporting of QMA, species and weights and fishing in closed areas. MFish considers that the proposed management options resulting in a significant reduction in the TAC over time may increase the incentive to offend. 49 125 The ORH 3B fishery is closely managed from an Industry perspective with few boats operating in the fishery and the owners of 97.95% of the ORH 3B quota represented by the Deepwater Group (DWG). DWG currently monitors adherence to voluntary catch spreading arrangements and provides monthly reports to MFish. DWG notifies MFish when catch reaches 80% of the sub-stock and sub-area limits, and also notifies MFish when any limit has been reached. 126 MFish considers that the monitoring arrangements are robust and appropriate. DWG and MFish will continue to closely monitor this fishery to ensure compliance with management arrangements. 50 APPENDIX 1 Statutory Considerations When setting or varying the TAC and TACC under the Act, you are required to consider a series of principles and factors: a) Section 13(2) MFish recommends that the TAC is varied pursuant to s 13(2)(b) to enable ORH 3B to be restored to a level at or above BMSY. Combining the best available estimates of Bcurrent and B0 for the ORH 3B substocks for which stock assessments have been undertaken (Northwest Chatham Rise, the East and South Chatham Rise and Puysegur) suggests a B0 in the order of 450,000 t and a Bcurrent in the order of 105,000 t. On this basis the assessed portion of ORH 3B is estimated to be at 23% B0. BMSY for orange roughy stocks is estimated to be 30% B0. There is no information on the status of the Sub-Antarctic portion of ORH 3B apart from Puysegur. However the sub-stocks for which stock assessments have been undertaken have provided approximately 95-96% of the total orange roughy biomass taken from ORH 3B since the fishery began. It is not credible that the portions of ORH 3B that have not been assessed could contain sufficient orange roughy biomass to lift the stock as a whole to, or above, BMSY. B The proposed TAC reduction under both options will be implemented by reducing the catch limit on the East and South Chatham Rise. The reduction will reduce the catch limit for this sub-stock towards the yield estimates derived from an FMSY strategy. Catch limits derived from an FMSY strategy by definition will rebuild a stock that is below BMSY. Further research is planned to refine yield estimates and further TAC reductions may be contemplated in future. The specific considerations set out in s 13(2)(b) include having regard to the interdependence of stocks, the biological characteristics of the stock and any environmental conditions affecting the stock. As such, in considering the proposed TAC options and corresponding proposed periods of rebuild, you must take into account: i) The interdependence of stocks for ORH 3B (as required by s 13(2)(b)(i)). There is no information to suggest the interdependence of stocks should affect the level of the TAC for ORH 3B at this time. Given that the fishery primarily targets aggregations of orange roughy, it is relatively clean, and bycatch proportions are low. ii) Environmental factors affecting ORH3B (as required under s 13(2)(b)(ii)). No specific environmental conditions affecting the ORH 3B stock have been identified. iii) The biological characteristics of ORH3B (as required under s 13(2)(b)(ii)). It is known that orange roughy are very long-lived and 51 late maturing, which are biological characteristics that render them slow to recover from overfishing. b) Section 13(3) requires that, in considering the way and rate at which a stock is moved towards BMSY, you have regard to such social, cultural, and economic factors as you consider relevant when determining the way and rate at which to move the stock biomass toward or above the BMSY level. MFish has considered the economic impact of reducing the TAC to the FMSY yield estimates for the East and South Chatham Rise. MFish proposes a staged approach to reducing the TAC to allow Industry time to rationalise their operations as the TAC decreases. This staged reduction will occur in concert with a research programme to update the yield estimates. Industry has consolidated the fleet deployed in the ORH 3B fishery and thereby significantly reduced the number of personnel involved in this fishery. While reduction in the TAC will likely reduce the number of days vessels expend in this fishery, the proposed cuts are not anticipated to have a significant social impact. MFish is not aware of any recreational or customary Mäori interest in the fishery and no other cultural factors that MFish considers are relevant to a determination under section 13(3). c) Sections 5(a) and (b) require the Act to be interpreted consistently with New Zealand’s international obligations with respect to fishing and with the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. Provisions of general international instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Fish Stocks Agreement have been implemented through the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1996 and given effect here. MFish considers that the options are consistent with both New Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. d) Section 8 of the Act describes the purpose of the Act as being to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability, and defines the meanings of utilisation and sustainability. The management options presented seek to achieve the purpose of the Act. The proposals ensure sustainability under the respective catch limits via sub-stock management and monitoring measures that address risk as appropriate to the different levels of catch, and take into account the respective costs of management versus the utilisation benefits. e) Sections 9(a) and (b) require you to take into account that associated or dependent species (those that are not harvested) be maintained at or above a level that ensures their long-term viability, and that the biological diversity of the aquatic environment should be maintained. The specific nature and extent of effects of fishing on any particular sub-stock in ORH 3B and the environment are generally understood to be localised and specific to aggregations of orange roughy at 850-1,200 metre depths. While some bycatch of non-harvested species is known, the impact that fishing for ORH 3B has on the long term viability and biological diversity of the aquatic environment is of greater concern in regions of steep sloping and highly diverse topographic features. Some features within ORH 3B have been set 52 aside from all trawling, including ten seamounts and the Arrow Plateau, to mitigate the benthic effects of fishing. The main prey species for orange roughy include mesopelagic and benthopelagic prawns, fish and squid, with other organisms such as mysids, amphipods and euphausiids occasionally being important. MFish has considered the effects on associated and dependent species and biodiversity that would affect the setting of the TAC and determined the impact is addressed under the catch spreading arrangements. f) Section 9(c) requires you to take into account the principle that habitat of particular importance for fisheries management should be protected. While trawling can adversely affect fragile benthic invertebrate communities, the commercial bycatch of benthic invertebrates is seldom recorded or examined. Research has revealed marked differences in the bottom fauna of fished and unfished seamounts off New Zealand and Tasmania, and those differences have been ascribed to the impact of bottom trawling. Researchers have reported anecdotal evidence of bycatch of coral species in developing orange roughy fisheries in New Zealand. Across the ORH 3B QMA 15% of the area within the recognised depth range of orange roughy is closed to bottom trawling through either the BPA initiative or the seamount closures. g) Section 10 of the Act sets out the information principles, which require that decisions be based on the best available information, taking into account any uncertainty in that information, and applying caution when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate. In accordance with s 10, the absence of information should not be used as a reason to postpone, or fail to take, any measure to achieve the purpose of the Act, including providing for utilisation at levels considered to be sustainable. A thorough review of available information has been undertaken in 2008 and the best available information has been used to derive management options. MFish has endeavoured to set out the relevant uncertainty in, and inadequacy of, that information so that the appropriate caution can be applied in assessing the proposed management options. h) Section 11(1)(a): Before varying the TAC for ORH 3B, you must take into account any effects of fishing on any stock and the aquatic environment. No information about any effects of fishing on any stock or on the aquatic environment additional to that discussed elsewhere in the paper is considered relevant to the consideration of sustainability measures for ORH 3B at this time. i) Section 11(1)(b): Before varying the TAC for ORH 3B, you must take into account any existing controls under the Act that apply to the stock or area concerned. For ORH 3B, the measures that apply currently are a TAC, TACC and an allowance for incidental fishing-related mortality. No other mandatory controls under the Act apply specifically to ORH 3B, but there are a number of voluntary sub-area catch limits as described above. In addition, specific seamount closures are located within ORH 3B. 53 j) Section 11(1)(c): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must take into account the natural variability of the stock. Orange roughy year-to-year biomass is not known to be highly variable, and therefore the natural variability of orange roughy is not a concern in setting the TAC for ORH 3B. k) Sections 11(2)(a) and (b): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must have regard to any provisions of any regional policy or plan under the Resource Management Act 1991 and any management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1997 that apply to the coastal marine area and you consider relevant. MFish is not aware of any such provisions that should be taken into account for ORH 3B. l) Section 11(2)(c): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must have regard to sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 that apply to the coastal marine area and you consider relevant.. The distribution of orange roughy in the ORH 3B QMA does not intersect with the Park boundaries. m) Section 11(2A)(b): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must take account of any relevant and approved fisheries plans. There is no approved fisheries plan in place for ORH 3B. n) Sections 11(2A)(a) and (c): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must take into account any conservation or fisheries service, or any decision not to require such services. MFish does not consider that existing or proposed services materially affect the proposals for the ORH 3B stock. No decision has been made to not require a service in this fishery at this time. o) Sections 20 and 21 specify a number of matters that must be taken into account when setting or varying a TACC. Section 21 requires you to allow for non-commercial Mäori and recreational fishing interests, and other sources of fishing-related mortality when setting or varying the TACC. The nature of the ORH 3B fishery and the interests of recreational and customary fishers have been considered in proposing the TACCs. p) Section 21(4) also requires that any mätaitai reserve or closure/restriction under s 186A to facilitate customary fishing be taken into account. There is one mätaitai reserve in ORH 3B generally (Te Whaka a Te Wera Maitaitai – located in Paterson Inlet, Stewart Island), but this does not intersect with the ORH 3B fishery. No area has been closed or fishing method restricted (that affects the fishery within ORH 3B) under the customary fishing provisions of the Act. q) Section 21(5) also requires that any regulations to prohibit fishing made under s 311 be taken into account when setting allowances for recreational interests. No restrictions under s 311 have been placed on fishing in any area within ORH 3B. 54 APPENDIX 2 Locations across the Chatham Rise where spawning orange roughy have been located from observer (red circles) and research (blue triangle) data 55 APPENDIX 3 Definition of ORH 3B sub-stock boundaries Note: All positions are given in degrees, minutes and decimal minutes format. Figures in brackets are decimal degrees with western longitudes given as a progression of eastern longitude (for example 179º W is given as 181). Existing sub-stock boundaries Sub-stock boundaries under proposed options 56 Northwest Chatham Rise (unchanged) The area within the box defined by the points: 42º10.0’ S, 174 º42’ E 42º10.0’ S, 178 º00’ W 44º00.0’ S, 178 º00’ W 44º00.0’ S, Coastline 43º44.3’ S, 173 º07.5’ E 43º08’ S, 173 º57’ E (-42.166667, 174.700000) (-42.166667, 182.000000) (-44.000000, 182.000000) (-44.000000, coastline ) (-43.738333, 173.125000) (-43.133333, 173.950000) Existing South Chatham Rise The area defined by the points: 44º00’ S, 171 º55.8’ E 44º00’ S, 175 º00’ W 46º00’ S, 175 º00’ W 46º00’ S, 170 º15.6’ E (-44.000000, 171.930000) (-44.000000, 185.000000) (-46.000000, 185.000000) (-46.000000, 170.260000) Note that for the area defined above, points 1 and 4 are linked by the coastline. For reporting purposes the following rectangular box that overlaps with the South Island may be used: 44º00’ S, 170 º15’ E 44º00’ S, 175 º00’ W 46º00’ S, 175 º00’ W 46º00’ S, 170 º15.6’ E (-44.000000, 170. 256977) (-44.000000, 185.000000) (-46.000000, 185.000000) (-46.000000, 170. 260000) Existing East Chatham Rise The area within the box defined by the points below: 42º10’ S, 178 º00’ W 42º10’ S, 173 º40’ W 46º00’ S, 173 º40’ W 46º00’ S, 175 º00’ W 44º00’ S, 175 º00’ W 44º00’ S, 178 º00’ W (-42.166667, 182.000000) (-42.166667, 186.333333) (-46.000000, 186.333333) (-46.000000, 185.000000) (-44.000000, 185.000000) (-44.000000, 182.000000) Proposed East and South Chatham Rise The East Chatham Rise and the South Chatham Rise areas defined above combined. Arrow Plateau (unchanged) The area within the box defined by the points: 42º10’ S, 173 º40’ W 42º10’ S, 171º00.07’W 46º00’ S, 171º46.68’W 46º00’ S, 173 º40’ W (-42.166667, 186.333333) (-42.166667, 188.998833) (-46.000000, 188.222000) (-46.000000, 186.333333) Note that for the area defined above, points 2 and 3 are linked by the boundary of the EEZ. 57 Puysegur (unchanged) The area within the rectangular box defined by the points: 46º00’ S, 165 º00’ E 46º00’ S, 166 º30’ E 47º30’ S, 166 º30’ E 47º30’ S, 165 º00’ E (-46.000000, 165.000000) (-46.000000, 166.500000) (-47.500000, 166.500000) (-47.500000, 165.000000) Sub-Antarctic (unchanged) The remaining area within ORH 3B. Specifically the area (excluding Puysegur) within the EEZ and below 46º00’ S on the East Coast and 44º15.6’ S on the West Coast. 58 APPENDIX 4 The top 50 species or species groups by weight from all observer records for the orange roughy target fishery for the 1999-2000 to 2004-2005 fishing years. Records are ordered by decreasing percentage of catch and includes IUCN status. Species code Common Name Scientific name Estimated catch (t) % of catch IUCN status ORH Orange roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus 17,246 75.05 Not listed SSO Smooth oreo Pseudocyttus maculatus 3,093 13.46 Not listed BOE Black oreo Allocyttus niger 732 3.18 Not listed SHA Any shark 275 1.19 Generic code HOK Hoki 235 1.02 Not listed COU Coral (unspecified) 187 0.81 Generic code CDL Black cardinalfish 171 0.75 Not listed SLK Slickheads 167 0.73 Generic code RAT Rattails Macrouridae 123 0.54 Generic code Etmopterus spp. 118 0.51 Least concern or data deficient ETM Macruronus novaezelandiae Epigonus telescopus SND Shovelnose spiny dogfish Deania calcea 86 0.37 Least concern BYX Alfonsino & longfinned beryx Beryx splendens & B. decadactylus 68 0.29 Not listed MOD Any morid cod 54 0.24 Generic code WSQ Warty squid Moroteuthis spp. 44 0.19 Not listed LCH Long-nosed chimaera Harriotta raleighana 38 0.17 Least concern JAV Javelinfish Lepidorhynchus denticulatus 38 0.17 Not listed SOR Spiky oreo Neocyttus rhomboidalis 38 0.16 Not listed HAK Hake Merluccius australis 37 0.16 Not listed RIB Ribaldo Mora moro 37 0.16 Not listed BEE Basketwork eel Diastobranchus capensis 36 0.16 Not listed WHR Unicorn & white rattails Trachyrincus spp 29 0.12 Not listed WHX 59 Species code Common Name Scientific name Estimated catch (t) % of catch IUCN status HJO Johnson's cod Halargyreus johnsonii 20 0.09 Not listed ECH Echinoderms Echinodermata 14 0.06 Generic code GSP Pale ghost shark Hydrolagus sp. B2 10 0.04 Least concern LIN Ling Genypterus blacodes 7 0.03 Not listed BNS Bluenose Hyperoglyphe antarctica 6 0.02 Not listed WOE Warty oreo Allocyttus verrucosus 5 0.02 Not listed EPR Robust cardinal fish Epigonus robustus 4 0.02 Not listed CYP Longnose velvet dogfish Centroscymnus crepidater 4 0.02 Least concern SPD Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias 4 0.01 Vulnerable SQX Squid (unspecified) 3 0.01 Generic code SKA Skate Rajidae, Arhynchobatidae 3 0.01 Generic code BSL Black slickhead Xenodermichthys copei 3 0.01 Not listed SMC Small-headed cod Lepidion microcephalus 3 0.01 Not listed EPL Bigeye cardinalfish Epigonus lenimen 3 0.01 Not listed CRU Crustaceans (unspecified) 2 0.01 Generic code SPE Sea perch Helicolenus spp. 2 0.01 Not listed GSH Dark ghost shark Hydrolagus novaezealandiae 2 0.01 Least concern GRC Grenadier cod Tripterophycis gilchristi 2 0.01 Not listed INV Invertebrates (unspecified) 2 0.01 Generic code DWE Deepwater eel 1 0.01 Generic code PLS Plunket's shark Centroscymnus plunketi 1 0.01 Near threatened SRI Knifetooth dogfish Scymnodon ringens 1 0.01 Not listed CHI Chimaera (unspecified) Chimaera spp. 1 0.01 Generic code LEG Giant lepidion Lepidion schmidti & L. inosimae 1 0.01 Not listed RCH Widenosed spookfish Rhinochimaera pacifica 1 0.01 Least concern BSK Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus 1 0.00 Vulnerable DSS Deepsea smelt Bathylagus spp 1 0.00 Not listed RUD Rudderfish Centrolophus niger 1 0.00 Not listed 60 APPENDIX 5 Observed captures of seabirds, fur seals and corals in the deepwater trawl fisheries for the periods 1 July 2004 – 30 June 2005, 1 July 2005 – 30 June 2006 and 1 July 2006 – 30 June 2007. 15 This data is combined across all trawl fisheries although the majority of observer coverage has been on the Chatham Rise and in the Sub-Antarctic. 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Observer cover (%) Bullers albatross Northern Royal albatross Salvin's albatross Albatross (unidentified) Seabirds Cape petrel Grey petrel White‐faced storm petrel TOTAL Pinipeds Fur Seals Bamboo Black Bubblegum Bushy Crested cup Deepwater branching Flabellum Golden Gorgonian Coral (kg) Long polyp soft Madrepora Precious Red Red hydrocoral spiny white hydrocoral Unid'd Rubble TOTAL Hydroids (kg) 15 19.91 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 4 1 0 81 485 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2367 0 0 20884 0 23817 0 18.89 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 99 47 822 158 15 78 7 22 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 5177 605 7036 7 28.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 205 92 1064 2398 17 50 6 15 0 0 3 1 22 6 2 813 13184 17878 2 Draft CSP observer report for the period 1 July 2004 – 30 June 2007, Marine Conservation Services, Department of Conservation. 37 p. 61 APPENDIX 6 Definition of ORH 3B sub-area component boundaries Note: All positions are given in degrees, minutes and decimal minutes format. Figures in brackets are decimal degrees with western longitudes given as a progression of eastern longitude (for example 179º W is given as 181). Existing East and South Chatham Rise sub-area component boundaries which are all removed under proposed options Spawning Box (existing) The area within the rectangular box defined by the points: 42º10’ S, 178 º00’ W 42º10’ S, 175 º00’ W 44º00’ S, 175 º00’ W 44º00’ S, 178 º00’ W (-42.166667, 182.000000) (-42.166667, 185.000000) (-44.000000, 185.000000) (-44.000000, 182.000000) During the period June 1 to 31 August. Northeast Chatham Rise (existing) The area within the rectangular box defined by the points: 42º10’ S, 178 º00’ W 42º10’ S, 173 º40’ W 44º00’ S, 173 º40’ W 44º00’ S, 178 º00’ W (-42.166667, 182.000000) (-42.166667, 186.333333) (-44.000000, 186.333333) (-44.000000, 182.000000) 62 Southeast Chatham Rise (existing) The area within the rectangular box defined by the points: 44º00’ S, 175 º00’ W 44º00’ S, 173 º40’ W 46º00’ S, 173 º40’ W 46º00’ S, 175 º00’ W (-44.000000, 185.000000) (-44.000000, 186.333333) (-46.000000, 186.333333) (-46.000000, 185.000000) Sub-Antarctic feature monitoring (unchanged) DWG monitors catch on the northern and eastern Pukaki Rise using the 'Feature Monitoring Grid' below. Each grid box is approximately 10nm by 10nm and each can have no more than 500 t of ORH taken from it. Grid cell A13 roughly aligns with the previous Priceless Box and grid cell A18 is the previous 'SE Box'. Catches are also monitored throughout the SubAntarctic sub-area. GIS analyses are performed to identify any feature or 10nm x 10nm area where accumulated catches approach the 500 t feature limit. 63 APPENDIX 7 Area of the ORH 3B QMA within the recognised depth range of orange roughy and areas closed to bottom trawling through both the seamount closures and the BPAs. 64 DEEMED VALUE RATES FOR SELECTED FISHSTOCKS – FINAL ADVICE 1 This paper sets out the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) recommendations of the deemed value rates for selected fish stocks for the 2008-09 fishing season. To identify stocks where the desired incentives for fishers to acquire ACE to balance against their catches, MFish uses the process outlined in the deemed value standard. A summary of this standard can be found in Appendix 1. Executive summary 2 Under s 75 (1) of the Act the Minister of Fisheries is required to set interim and annual deemed value rates for each quota management stock. Section 75 (2)(a) requires the Minister, when setting deemed value rates, to take into account the need to provide an incentive for every commercial fisher to acquire and hold sufficient annual catch entitlement (ACE) that is not less than the total catch of that stock taken by the commercial fisher. Section 75 (2)(b) sets out the factors the Minister may have regard to when setting deemed values. These factors from s 75 (2)(a) and 75 (2)(b) form the basis of the information sheets that have been produced for all the stocks under review. An outline of other relevant provisions of the Fisheries Act is provided at the end of this paper. 3 The deemed value standard has been used to review the appropriateness of the incentives under the current deemed value rates as part of this sustainability round. 4 The deemed value standard details a set of criteria which MFish uses to determine whether a fish stock should be considered for a deemed value review because inappropriate incentives to balance catch against ACE may exist. Table 1 details the stocks that met one or more of these criteria and therefore were eligible for a review. It also includes the recommended deemed value changes. 65 Table 1: Stocks that met the review criteria set out in the Deemed Value Standard Summary of Recommended deemed value changes Annual Fish Stock Reviewed Interim Differential Species Name Barracouta BAR5 No change No change No change Blue cod BCO3 Increased to Increased to Adjusted to match annual $3.75 per kg $2.50 per kg rate Blue shark BWS1 No change No change No change Elephant fish ELE3 No change No change No change Frostfish FRO8 No change No change No change Garfish GAR1 No change No change No change Grey mullet GMU1, GMU2, GMU3 & No change No change No change GMU7 Gurnard GUR3 No change No change Alter differential deemed values Hake HAK1 No change No change No change Hapuka/Bass All HPB stocks No change No change No change John dory JDO2 & JDO7 No change No change No change Kingfish KIN7 & KIN8 Increased to Increased to Adjusted to match annual $10.00 per kg $5.00 per kg rate Ling All LIN stocks No change No change No change Moki MOK1 No change No change No change Parore PAR1 and PAR2 Increased to Increased to No change $0.34 per kg $0.17 per kg Paua All PAU stocks Increased to Increased to Adjusted to match annual $66.00 per kg $50.00 per kg rate Pilchard PIL1 No change No change No change Porae POR2 Increased to Increased to No change $1.35 per kg $0.68 per kg Ruby fish RBY3 & RBY4 No change No change No change Ribaldo RIB5 Increased to Increased to No change $0.30 per kg $0.15 per kg Ribaldo RIB7 No change No change Higher differential deemed values applied Rough skate RSK1 & RSK3 No change No change No change Gemfish SKI1 & SKI2 Decreased to Decreased to Adjusted to match annual $1.50 per kg $0.75 per kg rate Sea perch SPE2 No change No change No change Sea perch SPE8 No change No change No change Rig SPO2 No change No change Alter differential deemed values Rig SPO7 No change No change No change Arrow squid SQU1T No change No change No change Smooth skate All SSK stocks No change No change No change Kina SUR1A & SUR7A No change No change No change Swordfish SWO1 Decreased to Decreased to No change $3.00 per kg $1.50 per kg Tarakihi TAR1 & TAR8 No change No change No change Trumpeter TRU4 No change No change No change White warehou WWA4 No change No change No change 5 In addition, stocks that are being considered for a total allowable catch (TAC) review as part of the October 2008 sustainability round are also included in this review process. These stocks are listed in Table 2 below. 66 Table 2: Stocks that are being considered for a TAC adjustment and therefore will also require a review of their deemed value rates Summary of Recommended deemed value changes Annual Fish Stock Reviewed Interim Differential Species Name Bluenose* All BNS stocks Not in this FAP Not in this FAP Not in this FAP Orange roughy ORH3B No change No change No change *Advice will be presented in separate FAP 6 All stocks in Tables 1 and 2 were considered at the deemed value review group meeting held Monday 5 May 2008. If the review group considered that a deemed value adjustment was appropriate, a range of information sources (see Appendix 2) was then used to propose a new deemed value rate. Individual assessments for each stock are set out in this paper. The deemed value review group included both MFish staff and a industry representative from SeaFIC. 7 The proposals were then put out for consultation. A range of views on the proposed deemed value changes were received from stakeholders. MFish has taken these views into consideration and where appropriate has incorporated them into the recommended deemed value rates for your consideration. 8 You are not limited to choosing the deemed value rates proposed in this paper; rather you can set the deemed value rates at any level that you consider will best meet your obligations under the Act. You can also choose to leave the deemed value rates unchanged provided you are satisfied that this meets your statutory obligations, although MFish considers the proposed adjustments to the deemed value rates for the stocks listed in this advice paper are appropriate at this time. Submissions 9 Submissions were received from the following stakeholders: • Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd (AFL); • Area 2 Inshore Finfish Management Company Ltd (Area 2 Inshore); • Challenger Finfisheries Management Company Ltd (Challenger); • Egmont Seafood Limited (ESL); • Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc. (ECO); • Independent Fisheries Ltd (Independent); • Sanford Limited (Sanford); • Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC). 10 All submissions relate to specific stocks and the proposed deemed value rates for these stocks. 67 Background 11 The purpose of the deemed value framework is to provide an incentive for fishers to acquire sufficient ACE to balance against catch. MFish considers that the objectives of the catch balancing regime are to ensure that: a) Catch is harvested, landed and balanced with ACE; b) There are no significant deemed value payments when ACE is left unused at the end of the fishing year; and c) Individual fishers are not able to use deemed values to undermine the QMS. 12 The catch balancing regime is a key fisheries management tool contributing to both sustainability and utilisation objectives. The sustainability objectives are achieved when deemed value rates encourage fishers to balance catch with available ACE and in so doing constrain harvesting to the total allowable commercial catch (TACC). Incorrectly set deemed values have led to catches in excess of TACC in some fisheries in the past, which may have sustainability implications. 13 Utilisation objectives are achieved by providing flexibility for commercial operators to manage unexpected and small overruns in ACE holdings by allowing periodic rather than continuous balancing. In the long term, the sustainability implications that may result from overfishing could result in TACC reductions, which also impact on utilisation objectives. 14 MFish developed the Deemed Value Standard in 2007 to ensure that deemed value rates are set so as to best meet the purpose of the Act. Justice J Priestly in the case of Pacific Trawling Limited and Independent Fisheries Limited v The Minister of Fisheries, High Court, Napier, CIV 2007-441-1016, 29 August 2008 states that: 15 “[81] The Deemed Value Standard (2007) is neither a gloss on nor an expansion of the s 75 criteria. Rather it is a policy document setting out various circumstances which might trigger a review of DVs.” 16 “[82] In short I consider Appendix 1 to the Final Advice represents new work by the Ministry setting out in a coherent way the circumstances after which a DV review will occur. The document does not constitute a template for the exercise of the Minister’s s 75 powers.” 17 The Deemed Value Standard provides guidance but you are not bound by it and all decisions made regarding deemed values are made under the powers provided to you by s 75. Rationale for management options 18 Under s 75(1) of the Act the Minister of Fisheries is required to set interim and annual deemed value rates for each quota management stock. Section 75 (2)(a) requires the Minister, when setting deemed value rates, to take into account the need to provide an incentive for every commercial fisher to acquire and hold sufficient ACE that is not less than the total catch of that stock taken by the commercial fisher. 68 19 The Act requires both annual and interim deemed value rates to be set for all stocks which will take effect on the first day of each fishing year. Prior to 2007, interim deemed value rates were set at 50% of the annual rate. There is a risk that setting interim deemed value rates too low will delay the balancing of catch until the end of the fishing season. This may lead to a race for ACE and insufficient ACE to cover all catch, therefore leading to the TACC being exceeded. 20 While MFish recommends that the interim deemed value rates will remain at 50% of the annual rates for most stocks, MFish recommends higher interim deemed value rates for some of the stocks under review. Details of what percentage of the annual deemed value the interim deemed values have been set at can be found in the analysis of each stock. In some instances it may be appropriate to set the interim rate closer to the annual rate. If fishers were required to pay a higher interim deemed value rate, it may encourage them to obtain ACE to balance their catch more regularly instead of delaying this until the end of the fishing year. MFish proposes that, in situations where more regular balancing is warranted to ensure catch levels do not exceed available ACE, the interim deemed value should be set closer to the annual rate. 21 MFish recommends that you should use differential deemed value rates. The purpose of differential deemed values is to create greater incentives at the individual level to balance catch with ACE. 22 Unlike both the annual and interim deemed value rates, differential deemed value rates apply at the individual fisher level only. MFish considers differential deemed value rates to be an important tool in addressing situations where fishers take excess catch with the intention of paying deemed values instead of balancing with ACE. 23 As part of a flexible approach to setting deemed values, MFish is recommending that differential deemed values are set at a level that will provide a strong incentive for fishers to balance catch with ACE. For some stocks this may mean applying differential deemed values at small percentages of overcatch such as 5% to discourage any fishing on deemed values; for others it may mean applying differential deemed value rates at 20% overcatch to allow some minor over catch. 24 MFish’s recommendations for differential deemed value rates depend on the stock and the behaviours that MFish considers deemed values ought to manage. The actual rates at which the differentials are set are flexible and are not necessarily based on the annual rate. Instead, they can be set at any financial amount that Minister considers is necessary to provide the appropriate disincentive for fishers to take fish without ACE. 25 For each stock in this review interim, annual and differential deemed value rates are proposed at a level that MFish considers will ensure every incentive is provided to fishers to balance catch with ACE. Process 26 The Deemed Value Standard sets out a process for reviewing and adjusting deemed value rates. This process is being followed for the October 2008 sustainability round. 69 27 All quota management system (QMS) stocks with a fishing year beginning 1 October were assessed against the following deemed value criteria as set out in the Deemed Value Standard: a) Catch in excess of a TACC; b) Catch in excess of an individual’s ACE holdings and deemed values have been invoiced but ACE has remained unused; c) Changes to the port price of a stock (Note: 2008-09 port price is data collected in 2008 that is used for setting 2008-09 levies); d) Direct request from the Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC) on behalf of quota owners; e) Recent changes to a stock’s TACC or the TACC of key bycatch stocks; f) Stock has recently entered the QMS and the initial deemed value rate was set using limited information. 28 Following an assessment of the stock’s performance against the criteria described above an analysis spreadsheet (“analysis spreadsheet”) was prepared. This analysis spreadsheet details the stock’s performance against the criteria described above. 29 This information was analysed to determine why deemed value rates for some stocks may not be effective. The analysis spreadsheet described above was used to answer questions such as: a) Likely reasons for the TACC overcatch/ACE breaches (where fisher behaviour or stock biology is the major factor); b) An assessment of the bycatch fisheries associated with the stocks under review (to ensure any changes to the target stock deemed value rates do not have an adverse effect on the sustainability of bycatch stocks); c) If there has been significant changes in the structure of quota/ACE holdings for the stocks; d) Likely risk that the deemed value may not provide the appropriate incentive to balance catch with ACE; e) Impact of changes in market price and/or structure for the fish product/species under review. 30 Information relevant to a deemed value adjustment is summarised in the analysis section for each stock. Information sheets for each stock can be found in Appendix 2. 31 All stocks included on the list (Tables 1 and 2) were reviewed by the deemed value review group at a meeting, held on Monday 5 May 2008. This review group consisted of a representative from SeaFIC and MFish officials. At this meeting, each stock was assessed using the information and analysis described above. This assessment determined if a deemed value adjustment was appropriate. 32 If a deemed value adjustment was considered appropriate, the following information sources were used to determine what the proposed new deemed value rate should be 70 proposed. This information was available to all participants at the deemed value review group meeting: a) Port price; b) ACE trading price; c) Export prices as a proxy for market values (where appropriate); d) Bycatch ratios (where appropriate); e) Cost recovery levy rates; and f) Past deemed value payments. Consultation process 33 Section 75A of the Act requires you to consult, if practicable, with persons or organisations that you consider represent classes of persons who have an interest in the stocks under review, including Maori, recreational, commercial and environmental interests. MFish followed its standard consultation process for IPPs in the October 2008 sustainability round. This involved posting all IPPs on MFish’s website and alerting stakeholders to this through a letter sent to approximately 350 companies, organisations and individuals. 34 In addition to making the IPP publicly available, MFish also consulted with SeaFIC to discuss the proposed deemed value rates. SeaFIC 35 SeaFIC participated in the deemed value review group meeting and MFish has also kept SeaFIC informed of the development of the deemed values rates that are recommended for your consideration in this advice paper. Assessment of management options 36 This section sets out a summary of the analysis for each stock, an assessment of why a deemed value adjustment is appropriate and recommended deemed value rates for your consideration. 37 MFish considers that not all stocks included on the review list required a deemed value adjustment. Details of these stocks are presented at the end of the analysis section. 38 MFish advises that for stocks that are subject to a TAC review in this sustainability round, you may need to reconsider the appropriate deemed value rate when you have set the TACC for that stock to ensure consistency of the two decisions. Where there are different TACC choices for your consideration, this paper provides recommendations on deemed value rates that MFish believes provide an incentive to protect the new TACC level. 39 If significant deeming is occurring in a fishery, this is strong evidence that the incentives are probably not correct and the situation needs to be rectified. In this 71 advice, MFish is recommending deemed value rates for the next fishing year so you need to be concerned that the incentives will be correct going ahead. MFish has tried to be proactive in recommending deemed value rates for fisheries were there is potential for problems in the future instead of being reactive and only taking action once problems become apparent certain fisheries. 40 Thus, the recommendations are trying to maintain the appropriate incentives going forward instead of waiting for the incentives to become inappropriate before responding. 41 As a general guide to setting deemed value rates under s 75 (2)(a), MFish advises the following actions should be considered to ensure the correct incentives are in place for commercial fishers to acquire or maintain sufficient ACE to cover their catch: 42 a) When deemed value rates are below ACE price: Increase deemed value rates to a level between ACE price and landed price to provide the incentive to balance catch with ACE. There are transaction costs associated with finding, buying and registering transfers of ACE. Deemed values should be sufficiently above ACE price, such that fishers would not ordinarily pay the deemed values to avoid those transaction costs; b) When deemed value rates are above landed price: Decrease deemed value rates to a level between ACE price and landed price to provide an incentive not to discard fish; c) When there are different deemed values rates across QMAs for a species: Consider whether less variation in deemed value rates across the QMAs may be appropriate to avoid providing an incentive not to misreport catch and so to fail to balance catch with ACE for the correct stock. MFish further advises that an important exception arises with respect to its advice in the previous paragraph that deemed values should generally be set below landed price. That exception arises when: a) A species is a bycatch in a multispecies fishery, such as a mixed trawl fishery; and b) The catch of that bycatch species constrains the ability of the fishing fleet to capture other target species. In this circumstance, the bycatch species is said to have a “shadow value” which reflects its value in permitting greater catches of other species in the overall fisheries complex. When the shadow value is high, the ACE value that will constrain catch to the TACC can often exceed the landed value. In this instance, the deemed value will typically need to exceed the landed value. 43 When the ACE price and the deemed values are above the landed value, incentives to discard the species are created. This may be an inevitable result of providing appropriate incentives under 75 (2) (a) for fishers to acquire ACE to cover their catches. When this occurs, you are likely to face recommendations from industry to lower deemed values in order to avoid incentives to discard. The industry’s perspectives in such cases are understandable. However, obligations under 75 (2) (a) may be such that it is not possible to accommodate industry’s legitimate concerns. It may be necessary to rely on compliance tools to prevent discarding when this occurs. 72 44 Several submitters including AFL, Area 2 Inshore, Challenger, ESL, Sanford and SeaFIC argue that the Minister should consider whether TACCs are appropriate before adjusting deemed value rates. Justice J Priestly in the case of Pacific Trawling Limited and Independent Fisheries Limited v The Minister of Fisheries, High Court, Napier, CIV 2007-441-1016, 29 August 2008 states: “[76] The obligations which the Minister has under Part 3 and the TAC and TACC setting mechanisms were not, in my judgment, matters which come into play when the Minister was setting DV rates under s 75…..In my judgment it is not permissible for the Minister, when considering DVs and the s 75(2)(a) requirement, to turn his mind to the possibility that relevant TACs may need revision or have been set faultily.” 45 Arguments raised in submissions about TAC and TACC levels are therefore not relevant to your decision. 46 The analysis for each stock follows. Blue cod: BCO3 47 Blue cod (BCO3) is a target fishery (potting) but also a key bycatch species in the southern inshore fin fishery. BCO3 is included in the review because: a) It has been consistently over-caught in recent fishing seasons (106% of available ACE in the 2006-07 fishing season); b) Deemed value invoices of $49,779 were issued at the end of the 2006-07 fishing season; c) The port price for BCO3 has increased from $2.94 per kg in 2006-07 to $3.81 per kg in 2007-08 (an increase of $0.87 per kg). 48 The consistent over-fishing raises questions whether fishers have the appropriate incentives to acquire sufficient ACE, which you must take into account when setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (a). You may also have regard to the extent to which catch of the stock has exceeded or is likely to exceed the TACC for the stock in any year in setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (b) (v). You may also have regard to the market value of the stock in setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (b) (iii). When the price of a species increases, there is an increased probability that incentives to land catches in excess of the TACC will arise 49 In the IPP, MFish proposed to increase the annual deemed value rate for BCO3 so that it better reflects the landed price suggested by export price and other information in this fishery. 50 MFish also proposed to set the interim deemed value rate at 66.66% of the annual deemed value rate to encourage fishers to balance their catch with ACE regularly instead of paying interim deemed values. 51 The differential deemed value rates for BCO3 would also change so they are in line with the proposed annual deemed value rate. 52 ECO and Sanford supported the deemed value rates for BCO3 set out in the IPP. 73 53 SeaFIC did not support the deemed value rates for BCO3 set out in the IPP. SeaFIC submitted that the TACC for BCO3 should be reviewed urgently. SeaFIC submits BCO3 is in high abundance and those fishers trawling for other target stocks are unable to avoid catching high levels of BCO3. SeaFIC submits that increasing the deemed value rates for BCO3 will increase levels of catch mis-reporting. 54 AFL submitted that the TACC was too low for BCO3. AFL submitted that increasing the annual deemed value rate to $3.75 per kg would not decrease catch but lead to an increase in discarding. AFL submits that the current annual deemed value rate of $3.25 per kg is already above the marginal price of ACE and is acting as a disincentive to targeting the stock 55 MFish now has the 2008-09 port prices to consider in its analysis of BCO3. The 2008-09 port price for BCO3 is $3.84 per kg. This has increased by $0.03 per kg since last year. As stated earlier, you may have regard to the market value of the stock in setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (b) (iii). 56 BCO3 presents a difficult choice given the over-fishing (your obligations under s 75 (2) (a)) and AFL comments regarding discarding. However, MFish recognises that there are problems with port price underestimating the true landed value of all species including BCO3. After considering information received in submissions and the evidence of continuing over-fishing, MFish is making the same recommendations to you that were proposed in the IPP. 57 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for BCO3 for the 2008-09 season: 58 a) Annual deemed value rate to increase from $3.25 per kg to $3.75 per kg; b) Interim deemed value rate to increase from $1.63 per kg to $2.50 per kg. MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 3: Proposed differential deemed value rates for BCO3 Current differential rates Proposed differential rates Catch in excess Current deemed Catch in excess Proposed deemed of ACE holdings value rate for BCO3 of ACE holdings value rate for BCO3 (%) ($) (%) ($) 20 3.90 per kg 20 4.50 per kg 40 4.55 per kg 40 5.25 per kg 60 5.20 per kg 60 6.00 per kg 80 5.85 per kg 80 6.75 per kg 100 6.50 per kg 100 7.50 per kg Bluenose: All BNS stocks 59 The deemed value advice for all BNS stocks will be presented in a separate deemed value FAP accompanying the BNS TAC review FAP. 74 Gurnard: GUR3 60 GUR3 is a bycatch of the ELE3, FLA3, RCO3 and TAR3 target fisheries of the southern inshore finfish fishery. The 2008 plenary states that the abundance of GUR3 is at its highest level in 20 years and that current catches are probably sustainable in the short to medium term. Data from the South-east Winter Trawl Survey indicates relative biomass is now twice the level of the early 1990s, when the TACC was 600 tonnes. The TAC and TACC for GUR3 will be reviewed in 2009. 61 There is a high abundance of GUR3, which is creating bycatch problems in the southern inshore finfish fishery. This has resulted in catches in excess of ACE and deemed value payments. a) In the last three fishing seasons GUR3 has been over caught (124% of available ACE in the 2006-07 fishing season); b) Deemed value invoices of $216,356 were issued at the end of the 2006-07 fishing season. 62 The deemed value rates for GUR3 were changed in the October 2007 review to protect the TACC. Deemed value invoices incurred in the 2007-08 fishing year as stated in the IPP (1 October 2007 to 14 April 2008) showed a drop from $30,023 to $7,219, a significant decrease compared to the same time period last year. 63 However, these changes may have encouraged non-reporting and discards. With the high abundance of GUR3, fishers report that they cannot avoid catching gurnard as bycatch. If fishers discard bycatch, then they are not acquiring ACE to match their catches. Therefore, incentives to discard raise questions about whether fishers have correct incentives to acquire ACE to cover their catches, per s 75 (2) (a). And under s 75 (2) (b) (i), you may specifically have regard for the desirability of avoiding incentives to discard fish. Under present circumstances, it is difficult to set deemed values that discourage avoidable catches in excess of the TACC but still provide an incentive to land unavoidable bycatches. 64 In the IPP, MFish recognised that the deemed value structure for GUR3 may not encourage fishers to balance their catch with ACE. 65 In the IPP, MFish proposed to leave the annual and interim deemed values unchanged, but to reduce the differential deemed values. The deemed values that were implemented last year have had the desired effect of reducing the incentives to land fish without acquiring ACE. However, given that all ACE for GUR3 will be used under current conditions, fishers who have large bycatches of GUR3 cannot be sure that they can acquire sufficient ACE to stay within 20% of their ACE. If a fisher cannot find ACE to purchase, the fisher would pay $1.92 per kg for catches more than 20% over ACE and $2.24 per kg for catches more than 40% over ACE. Facing the risk of ramped differentials, fishers may be tempted to discard GUR3 if their ACE holdings are insufficient. To reduce this risk, MFish proposes to eliminate the 20% and 40% steps in the differential values, and start differentials at 50% above ACE holdings. Fishers who land gurnard in excess of ACE holdings at the time of the catch will not face differential deemed values unless their landings exceed ACE by more than 50%. 75 66 MFish believes that for this stock for the current year, this is an appropriate way to balance your responsibilities under s 75 (2) (a) to provide incentives for fishers to balance catches against ACE while also having regard for the objective of not creating incentives to discard, per s 75 (2) (b) (i). If the TAC is reviewed next year, as planned, it seems likely that the deemed values and differential structure would be recommended for change. This differential structure, therefore, is likely to be in place only for one year. 67 ECO and SeaFIC support the deemed value rates for GUR3 set out in the IPP. SeaFIC submitted that the TACC for GUR3 should be reviewed urgently. 68 AFL proposed increasing the annual deemed value rate for GUR3 to $2.00 per kg. AFL also supported removing the differential deemed values entirely. (AFL also proposed either removing or setting the interim deemed value rate at the annual deemed value rate. This option is not available under the Act.) 69 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for GUR3 for the 2008-09 season: 70 a) Retain the existing annual deemed value rate of $1.60 per kg; b) Retain the existing interim deemed value rate of $0.80 per kg. MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 4: Proposed differential deemed value rates for GUR3 Current differential rates Catch in excess Current deemed of ACE holdings value rate for (%) GUR3 ($) Proposed differential rates Catch in excess Proposed deemed of ACE holdings value rate for GUR3 (%) ($) 20 1.92 per kg 50 2.08 per kg 40 2.24 per kg 60 2.56 per kg 60 2.56 per kg 80 2.88 per kg 80 2.88 per kg 100 3.20 per kg 100 3.20 per kg Kingfish: KIN7 & KIN8 71 KIN7 is caught as a bycatch in the jack mackerel fishery in area 7 (JMA7) but it is also an important recreational fish stock. This was reflected in the TACC allocation that was set when the stock entered the QMS in 2003; a 21 tonne TAC was set but just 7 tonnes was allocated for commercial use. The KIN7 stock is believed to be on the margins of the distribution of kingfish and, while there is incomplete information about the status of the stock, it is important that catches are constrained to the TACC. All kingfish stocks are listed on the 6th Schedule of the Act which means a kingfish can be returned to the sea, provided it is likely to survive. While this option is available to fishers who catch kingfish as a bycatch in JMA7, the survival of a kingfish caught in a large trawl net is unlikely. 72 Current deemed value rates are not constraining KIN7 catches to the TACC limit (182% of ACE was caught during the 2006-07 fishing year) as the value from the jack mackerel fishery makes it feasible for fishers to continue to fish in excess of the KIN7 TACC and pay deemed values on their excess catch. Three companies were 76 responsible for just under 90% of the total deemed value bill of $71,292 which was invoiced at the end of the 2006-07 fishing year. 73 For these reasons there are concerns in relation to the matter that you must take into account under 75 (2) (a), namely the need to provide an incentive for every commercial fisher to balance their catch with ACE. MFish therefore recommends you consider amending the deemed value rates for KIN7 for the 2008-09 fishing year. 74 Vessels targeting JMA7 operate across both the KIN7 and KIN8 fisheries. There are concerns that by increasing the deemed value rates in KIN7 this may create an incentive for fishers to continue fishing in KIN7 while misreporting their catch as KIN8. In addition, KIN8 has also been routinely overfished since it was introduced to the QMS (between 107% – 159% of ACE in each of the last four years). At the end of 2007-08 fishing year the total deemed value amount invoiced was just under $31,000 and one company was responsible for two thirds of this amount. These factors indicate that the incentive to balance catch with ACE, which you must take into account under 75 (2) (a), is not being provided for KIN8. MFish is also proposing that you amend the deemed value rates in KIN8, and that you adopt the same rates as those proposed for KIN7 in order to avoid creating any incentive to misreport. 75 Both KIN7 and KIN8 act as a constraint on fishers seeking to utilise their JMA7 ACE and this has resulted in some stakeholders simultaneously opposing any increase to the deemed value rates and recommending lower deemed value rates instead. Stakeholders raised two key issues with regard to the proposed deemed value rates for both KIN stocks: 76 a) There are concerns that by increasing the KIN7 and KIN8 deemed value rates above the market price for the species, this will only encourage fishers to dump their catch rather than report it, or use the 6th Schedule provision allowing live kingfish to be returned to the sea when the kingfish has little chance of survival. They are also concerned that implementing management measures that make dumping inevitable will have an impact on the quality of information that is available to inform future stock assessments; b) The reason why both KIN7 and KIN8 constrain utilisation of the JMA7 fishery is because commercial fishers’ allocation was reduced below average historical landings when kingfish entered the QMS in 2003. This was in response to the decision to give the majority of the TAC allocation to recreational fishers. Both Challenger and SeaFIC are concerned that the TACC has been set too low and that it is inappropriate to use high deemed value rates to defend what they consider to be an incorrectly set TACC. Independent advises in its submission that the current price it receives for frozen at sea kingfish is $2.20 per kg which is well below the current (and proposed) annual deemed value rate. In Independent’s view such a discrepancy will only encourage fishers to dump their catch because the cost of landing and reporting the catch is so prohibitive. Independent recommends that instead of increasing the deemed value for kingfish it should be lowered so that it reflects market price and encourages fishers to report their catch. This view is also supported by ESL. 77 77 MFish has some sympathy for the issues that stakeholders have raised. However, you are required to set deemed value rates as per section 75 of the Act. This means you must take into account the need to provide an incentive for every commercial fisher to acquire or maintain sufficient ACE for the stock they are fishing (s. 75 (2)(a)). If you set the deemed value rates for both kingfish stocks to reflect the market price that has been provided in the submissions it is unlikely that you will provide an incentive for fishers to either acquire the necessary ACE or cease fishing when all ACE has been utilised because of the value of jack mackerel caught with the kingfish. 78 MFish also notes that the 2007 export price for frozen kingfish is around $5.00 per kg which is considerably higher than the $2.20 per kg price provided in the submission from Independent. Chilled kingfish attracts a premium export price of over $22 per kg but since the majority of the kingfish caught in the JMA fishery will be frozen at sea it therefore will not be able to realise the premium for chilled product. 79 The Act, however, does permit you to have a regard to the desirability that fishers will land the catch for which they do not have ACE when you are deciding where to set the deemed value rate (s. 75 (2)(b)(i)). This means you can set the deemed value rate at a level that will encourage fishers to land and report their catch (rather than dumping it) but only if in setting it at that level you have taken into account the need to provide fishers with an appropriate incentive to balance their catch with ACE. Moreover, as noted in the deemed value standard, when a bycatch stock is constraining a target stock, it may be necessary to set the deemed value rate of the bycatch stock in excess of its market price so as to give the correct financial incentive to fishers to cease fishing or (if possible) to alter fishing practices to reduce or avoid bycatch. 80 In MFish’s view lowering or maintaining the existing deemed value rates will not reduce overfishing in either kingfish fishery 81 As noted above you are not required to consider the appropriateness of either the KIN7 or KIN8 TACC when setting deemed values. 82 ECO and Sanford support the deemed value rates for KIN7 and KIN8 set out in the IPP. 83 MFish recommends the following deemed value rates for KIN7 and KIN8 for the 2008-09 season, however you can choose to set the deemed value rates for both stocks at a level that you consider is appropriate, considering your obligations under section 75 of the Act. 84 Annual deemed value rate to increase: i) KIN7: from $8.90 per kg to $10.00 per kg; ii) KIN8: from $8.90 per kg to $10.00 per kg; a) Interim deemed value rate to increase: iii) KIN7: from $4.45 per kg to $5.00 per kg; iv) KIN8: from $4.45 per kg to $5.00 per kg; 78 85 MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 5: Proposed differential deemed value rates for KIN7 & KIN8 Current differential rates Catch in excess Current deemed of ACE holdings value rate for KIN7 (%) & KIN8 ($) Proposed differential rates Catch in excess Proposed deemed of ACE holdings value rate for KIN7 & (%) KIN8 ($) 20 10.80 per kg 20 12.00 per kg 40 12.60 per kg 40 14.00 per kg 60 14.40 per kg 60 16.00 per kg 80 16.20 per kg 80 18.00 per kg 100 18.00 per kg 100 20.00 per kg Parore: All PAR stocks 86 Parore is principally caught as a bycatch in the grey mullet, flatfish and trevally setnet fisheries in northern New Zealand. Most of the catch comes from eastern Northland and the Firth of Thames (PAR1) and the Kaipara and Manukau Harbours (PAR9). 87 In PAR1, 82% of the TACC was caught in 2006-07. PAR1 was included in this review because there were deemed value payments when 19% of ACE remained unused during the 2006-07 fishing year. Deemed value payments equalled $1,893 which represents 6 tonnes, or approximately 10% of the 61 tonne TACC. This is a small amount in dollar terms but not in terms of the percentage of the TACC being deemed. This raises questions about whether fishers have appropriate incentives to acquire sufficient ACE, which you must take into account when setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (a). The average ACE price was $0.23 per kg in the most recent trading year. There has been a slight increase in the port price from $1.53 per kg to $1.78 per kg. You may have regard to the market value of the stock in setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (b) (iii). When the price of a species increases, there is an increased probability that incentives to land catches in excess of the TACC will arise. 88 When MFish reviews a stock for a possible deemed value change, MFish also reviews other stocks of the same species. The market value and fishing costs may be similar for other stocks of the same species. If there is evidence that fishers lack appropriate incentives to acquire ACE for PAR1, there is some possibility that there may exist or may soon develop conditions that undermine the incentive to acquire ACE for PAR2 and PAR9, which would raise concerns under s 75 (2) (a). 89 In PAR9, 44% of the TACC was caught in 2006-07. Deemed value payments of $301, which represents approximately 5% of the TACC, were made. As with the other two PAR stocks, the price has increased from $1.45 per kg to $1.82 per kg. PAR9 currently has a slightly higher annual deemed value ($0.34 per kg) than PAR1 and PAR2 ($0.31 per kg). The average ACE price in the most recent year was $0.25 per kg. 90 PAR2 is a relatively small fishery, with a TACC of 2 tonnes. PAR2 includes all New Zealand waters not covered by PAR1 and PAR9. This area is not the main range of the species. Only a small percent of the TACC (1%-3%) has been taken in recent years, mostly on deemed values. The port price for PAR2 increased significantly in the last year, from $0.69 per kg to $1.82 per kg. This recent price is in line with prices in PAR1 and PAR9, where most of the fishery occurs. There is no information 79 on ACE price in the most recent year. 91 When MFish recommends a change to the deemed value for a stock, MFish reviews whether incentives may be created for fishers to misreport the QMA in which fish were caught. This may arise if fishers can avoid acquiring ACE by reporting the catch as coming from a different QMA and paying the deemed value for that misreported area. This incentive may be created when deemed values in two adjoining areas have different rates. At present, annual deemed values are higher in PAR9 ($0.34 per kg) than in PAR1 ($0.31 per kg) and PAR2 ($0.31 per kg). When fishers misreport landings in order to take advantage of lower deemed value payments in some area, they fail to acquire ACE in the area where they actually caught the fish. This raises issues under s 75 (2) (a) about whether fishers have appropriate incentives to acquire ACE for the area where the fish are caught. 92 In the IPP, MFish stated it believed that the current deemed value rates were not providing the appropriate incentive to fishers to balance their catch with ACE in PAR1. MFish proposed to set the same annual ($0.31 per kg) and interim deemed value ($0.16 per kg) rates for all the PAR stocks and introduce differential deemed values into all the PAR stocks. The differentials would have resulted in substantially higher deemed value payments for fishers who acquire little or no ACE in relation to their catches. Under that recommendation, the current annual deemed value rate for PAR9 of $0.34 per kg would have fallen to $0.31 per kg. 93 MFish believed the approach of uniform deemed values across QMAs would remove any incentive to misreport PAR to take advantage of a lower deemed value rate in a neighbouring PAR fishery. 94 ECO supported the deemed value rates for all PAR stocks set out in the IPP. 95 Sanford did not support the deemed value rates for all PAR stocks set out in the IPP. Sanford submitted that no deemed value rates should be lowered, which would have been the result in PAR9. 96 AFL and SeaFIC did not support the deemed value rates for all PAR stocks set out in the IPP. AFL and SeaFIC submitted that it was inappropriate to introduce differential deemed value rates into low value fisheries. 97 AFL proposed that the annual deemed value rate for all PAR stocks be increased to $0.35 per kg as they believe the current annual deemed value rate is acting as a cap on ACE prices. Fishers pay deemed values for 10% of the catch in PAR1, even when ACE remains available. The current average ACE prices of $0.23 per kg in PAR1 and $0.25 per kg in PAR9 are close to the deemed value rates of $0.31 per kg in PAR1 and $0.34 per kg in PAR9. This evidence tends to support AFL’s arguments. (AFL also proposed setting the interim deemed value rate at the annual deemed value. However, this option is not available under the Act.) 98 Based on information received in submissions, MFish is making different recommendations to you than it proposed in the IPP. 99 MFish does advise that some action is necessary to ensure that fishers have appropriate incentives to acquire ACE for PAR1, per s 75 (2) (a). Rather than 80 introducing differential deemed values as proposed in the IPP, which was opposed by some in industry, MFish recommends raising the interim and annual deemed values for PAR1. MFish recommends that the rates currently in force in PAR9 be applied to PAR1 in order to provide appropriate incentives to acquire ACE, per s 75 (2) (a). The economic conditions in PAR9 may be similar to PAR1, and the current rates in PAR9 seem to have created appropriate incentives in PAR9. 100 MFish recommends that the same rates be set in PAR2 as in PAR1 and PAR9. PAR2 has a small TACC, and it abuts both PAR1 and PAR9. By setting the same deemed value rates in all three parore QMAs (PAR1, PAR2, and PAR9), incentives to misreport the stock of origin for catches as PAR2 and thus to fail to acquire appropriate ACE in PAR1 and PAR9 are avoided. Incentives to fail to acquire sufficient ACE, which would raise concerns under 75 (2) (a), are thereby avoided. 101 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for all PAR stocks for the 2008-09 season: a) b) Annual deemed value rate to: i) PAR1: increase from $0.31 per kg to $0.34 per kg; ii) PAR2: increase from $0.31 per kg to $0.34 per kg; iii) PAR9: remain at $0.34; Interim deemed value rate to: iv) PAR1: increase from $0.16 per kg to $0.17 per kg; v) PAR2: increase from $0.16 per kg to $0.17 per kg; vi) PAR9: remain at $0.17 per kg; 102 Because there is no fishing for PAR10 (in the Kermadec area), deemed values do not affect the incentives to acquire ACE for FMA 10, per 75 (2) (a). Therefore, MFish recommends that you make no changes for deemed values for PAR10. 103 MFish recommends continuing to have no differential deemed value rates in these fisheries. Paua: All PAU Stocks 104 Paua is an important species to both commercial and non-commercial fishers. The commercial value per kg is high. 105 Paua is a specific target; it is never caught as in incidental bycatch. Therefore, the issue of unintended bycatches does not arise for PAU stocks. 106 All PAU stocks are on the Eighth Schedule, which requires minimum holdings of PAU ACE before commercial harvestings. The minimum holdings are 1 tonne except PAU6 were the minimum holding is 100 kg. Fishers are required to hold ACE prior to fishing. 81 107 The factors cited above have led previous Ministers to decide that the appropriate incentive for PAU stocks is to provide a very strong incentive to catch only the amount of PAU for which fishers have ACE. The objective when applying s 75 (2) (a) has been to provide a strong disincentive against catches in excess of ACE. This has been accomplished by setting the annual deemed value at approximately twice the port price. A fisher would suffer a large loss on any catches in excess of ACE. By setting the deemed value at twice the port price, it is very unlikely that even if prices increase during a fishing year that any incentive would arise to land paua in excess of ACE. 108 The paua industry has been supportive of providing a strong incentive for landing only paua for which the fisher has ACE. MFish advises that this approach continues to provide appropriate incentives to balance catches with ACE, per s 75 (2) (a). 109 Because of the strong disincentives for catches in excess of ACE, there are typically very low deemed value payments. For 2006-07, there were no deemed value payments in PAU1, PAU3, PAU5D, PAU6, and PAU10. There were payments of less than $900 in PAU2, PAU5A, and PAU7. Because the annual deemed value rate was $60 per kg, this represents less than 20 kg in each area. Deemed value payments of $3,900 were made in PAU4 and of $20,460 were made in PAU5B. 110 To maintain the strong incentive not to exceed ACE, the deemed values must be adjusted to reflect changes in price. There has been an increase in the port price for all PAU stocks (except PAU10, which is not fished) to $44.39 per kg (an increase of $7.38 per kg) in 2007-08. 111 MFish believes it is important to continue the strategy of setting the annual deemed value rate at least twice the port price for paua. In the IPP, MFish proposed to shift the annual deemed value rate for all PAU stocks to $90.00 per kg to account for the increase in port price. This is approximately twice the current port price. 112 MFish also proposed to set the interim deemed value rate at 77.77% of the annual deemed value rate to encourage fishers to balance their catch with ACE regularly instead of paying interim deemed values. 113 The differential deemed value rates for all PAU stocks would then be adjusted to match the proposed annual deemed value rate. 114 ECO supported the deemed value rates for all PAU stocks set out in the IPP. 115 SeaFIC submitted that it agreed that the deemed value rates for all the PAU stocks need to be increased; the increase should be based on the 2008-09 port price of $33.15 per kg. SeaFIC also submitted that the interim deemed value should be set at 50% of the annual deemed value rate. 116 AFL supported SeaFIC’s submission on all the PAU stocks. 117 MFish agrees that the increase in the deemed value rates for all PAU stocks should be based on the 2008-09 port price. 118 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for all PAU stocks for the 2008-09 season: 82 a) b) Annual deemed value rate to increase: i) PAU1: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; ii) PAU2: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; iii) PAU3: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; iv) PAU4: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; v) PAU5A: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; vi) PAU5B: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; vii) PAU5D: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; viii) PAU6: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; ix) PAU7: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; Interim deemed value rate to increase: x) PAU1: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xi) PAU2: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xii) PAU3: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xiii) PAU4: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xiv) PAU5A: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xv) PAU5B: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xvi) PAU5D: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xvii) PAU6: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xviii) PAU7: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; 119 Because there is no fishing for PAU10 (in the Kermadec area), deemed values do not affect the incentives to acquire ACE for FMA 10, per 75 (2) (a). Therefore, MFish recommends that you make no changes for deemed values for PAU10. 120 MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 6: Proposed differential deemed value rates for all PAU stocks Current differential rates Catch in excess Current deemed of ACE holdings value rate for all (%) PAU stocks ($) Proposed differential rates Catch in excess Proposed deemed of ACE holdings value rate for all PAU (%) stocks ($) 20 72.00 per kg 20 79.20 per kg 40 84.00 per kg 40 92.40 per kg 60 96.00 per kg 60 105.60 per kg 80 108.00 per kg 80 118.80 per kg 100 120.00 per kg 100 132.00 per kg Porae: All POR stocks 121 Porae is principally caught as a bycatch in inshore setnet fisheries in northern New Zealand. It is generally taken in association with snapper and trevally in east Northland and Coromandel, and with tarakihi and blue moki around Gisborne. 83 122 Porae (POR2) was included in this review because 135% of ACE was caught in the 2006-07 fishing year and deemed value invoices of $2,108 were incurred. There has also been an increase in the port price from $1.83 per kg to $2.15 per kg. The deemed value rates for POR2 are also out of line with deemed value rates of the other POR stocks. In POR1, deemed value invoices of $3,140 were issued when 4% of ACE was unused at the end of the 2006/2007 fishing season. In POR3, deemed value invoices of $1 were issued when 99% of ACE was unused at the end of the 2006/2007 fishing season. 123 The over-fishing of POR2 during the 2006-07 fishing year raises questions whether fishers have the appropriate incentives to acquire sufficient ACE, which you must take into account when setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (a). You may also have regard to the extent to which catch of the stock has exceeded or is likely to exceed the TACC for the stock in any year in setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (b) (v). 124 There has also been an increase in the port price from $1.83 per kg to $2.15 per kg. You may have regard to the market value of the stock in setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (b) (iii). When the price of a species increases, there is an increased probability that incentives to land catches in excess of the TACC will arise 125 In the IPP, MFish proposed to set the same annual and interim deemed value rates for all POR stocks and introduce differential deemed values for all POR stocks. If there is evidence that fishers lack appropriate incentives to acquire ACE for POR2, there is some possibility that there may exist or may soon develop conditions that undermine the incentive to acquire ACE for POR1 and POR3, which would raise concerns under s 75 (2) (a). 126 This approach would remove any incentive to misreport POR landings in order to take advantage of a lower deemed value rate in a neighbouring POR fishery. 127 ECO and Sanford supported the deemed value rates for all POR stocks set out in the IPP. 128 AFL did not support the deemed value rates for all POR stocks set out in the IPP. AFL submitted that the low TACC in POR2 is constraining catch in the inshore setnet fishery. AFL submitted that increasing the annual deemed value rate to $1.35 per kg will not decrease catch but lead to an increase in discarding. AFL proposed that the interim deemed value should be removed or set at the annual deemed value rate, and that until a TACC review has occurred that differential deemed values should not apply to this fishery. 129 Area 2 Inshore and SeaFIC did not support the deemed value rates for all POR stocks set out in the IPP. Both Area 2 Inshore and SeaFIC submitted that the 135% of ACE caught during the 2006-07 fishing season is due to misreporting of POR1 as POR2 by one permit holder. They submitted that all fishers should not be punished by the actions of one fisher. Both note that the fisher responsible for the misreporting has now left the fishery. 130 MFish agrees the breach of the TACC for POR2 was likely the result of the actions of one fisher but if the lower deemed value rate is retained for POR2, the incentive remains for other fishers to misreport catches and so not to balance their catch with 84 ACE for the correct stock. Misreporting of catches can have negative impacts on the quality of assessments of stock biomass and on the availability of ACE to legitimate fishers. MFish does not agree that correcting inappropriate incentives is punishing fishers. 131 Based on information received in submissions, MFish is making different recommendations to you than it proposed in the IPP. 132 MFish recommends keeping no differential deemed value rates in POR1, POR2 and POR3. This is a change from the deemed value rates proposed in the IPP. MFish agrees with submitters that at this stage it is inappropriate to introduce differential deemed values into these low value fisheries. 133 However, MFish recommends that the same rates still be set in POR2 as in POR1 and POR3. The economic conditions in POR2 are probably similar to the economic conditions in POR1 and POR3, so appropriate incentives will exist to acquire ACE for POR2, per s 75 (2) (a). 134 By setting the same deemed value rates in all three porae QMAs (POR1, POR2, and POR3), incentives to misreport the stock of origin for catches and thus to fail to acquire appropriate ACE are avoided. Incentives that are inconsistent with the objectives of 75 (2) (a) are thereby avoided. 135 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for all POR stocks for the 2008-09 season: a) b) Annual deemed value rate to: i) POR1: remain at $1.35 per kg; ii) POR2: increase from $0.69 per kg to $1.35 per kg; iii) POR3: remain at $1.35 per kg; Interim deemed value rate to: iv) POR1: remain at $0.68 per kg; v) POR2: increase from $0.35 per kg to $0.68 per kg; vi) POR3: remain at $0.68 per kg; 136 Because fishing is not allowed for POR10, deemed values do not affect the incentives to acquire ACE for FMA 10, per 75 (2) (a). Therefore, MFish recommends advises that you make no changes for deemed values for POR10. 137 MFish recommends continuing to have no differential deemed value rates in these fisheries. Ribaldo: RIB3, RIB4, RIB5, RIB6 & RIB7 138 Ribaldo was classified as a low knowledge stock when it was brought into the QMS in 1998. This classification meant that a low TACC was set but low deemed values were also introduced to encourage fisher’s to report their catch. The TACC for RIB7 was reviewed during the October 2006 sustainability round and was substantially increased from 55 tonnes to 330 tonnes. The deemed value rates were also increased 85 at the same time from an annual deemed value rate of $0.07 per kg to $0.80 per kg and from an interim deemed value rate of $0.04 per kg to $0.40 per kg. However, the TACC was over-fished (122% of ACE caught) during the 2006-07 fishing year which would suggest the deemed value rates were not set at an appropriate level when last reviewed by MFish. 139 During the 2006-07 fishing year $67,350 in deemed value payments were invoiced for RIB7. Three companies were responsible for 93% of these payments. There are currently no differential deemed value rates in place for any RIB stock and MFish believes this provides fishers with a strong incentive to continue to fish without ACE. 140 The existence of over-fishing during the 2006-07 fishing year does mean that fishers may not have the appropriate incentives to acquire sufficient ACE to balance their catch. You are required to consider if the appropriate incentives are in place under s 75 (2) (a). You may also have regard to the extent to which catch of the stock has exceeded or is likely to exceed the TACC in any year ( s 75 (2) (b) (v)). 141 MFish is proposing that differential deemed value rates are applied in RIB7 in two incremental stages; for catch that is 110% of ACE holdings a rate of $1.20 per kg will apply and for catch that is 120% of ACE holdings a higher rate of $2.00 per kg will apply. 142 In the IPP, MFish also considered it appropriate to set consistent deemed value rates for stocks that are routinely fished as part of the same fishing trip so as to avoid any incentive for fishers to misreport catch by taking advantage of a lower deemed value rate in a neighbouring stock. For this reason MFish had proposed increasing the deemed value rates for RIB3, RIB4, RIB5 and RIB6 so that their interim and annual deemed value rates matched those of RIB7 and so that the proposed differential deemed value rates also apply. MFish now considers that since these stocks have not been over-fished in recent years and given the current port price of $0.48 per kg it may be inappropriate at this time to increase the deemed value rates for RIB3, RIB4, RIB5 and RIB6 so that they are fully in line with RIB7. 143 However, MFish is concerned that the current deemed value rates for RIB5 are set too low given that the 2008-09 port price for the stock is $0.48 per kg. MFish believes this could provide fishers with an incentive to fish in excess of ACE holdings and it could mean that your obligations under s. 75 (2) (a) may not be met. For this reason MFish recommends that you increase the deemed value rates for RIB5 so that the interim deemed value rate is increased from $0.03 per kg to $0.15 per kg and the annual deemed value rate is increased from $0.06 per kg to $0.30 per kg. This change will mean that similar deemed value rates will apply across RIB3, RIB4 and RIB5. 144 MFish will continue to monitor RIB3, RIB4, RIB5 and RIB6 during the 2008-09 fishing year to ensure that catch quantities stay within the limit of the TACC. If there is evidence of over-fishing or misreporting between stocks then the deemed value rates for these stocks will be reviewed for the 2009-2010 fishing year. 145 ECO and Sanford support the introduction of differential deemed value rates and the application of a standard deemed value regime for all RIB stocks, as set out in the IPP. 86 146 AFL supports the use of differential deemed value rates and recommends that these rates are implemented at 5% and $0.20 increments, starting at $1.00 per kg. 147 SeaFIC supports differential deemed value rates for RIB7 but does not believe that standard rates should be applied to RIB3, RIB4, RIB5 and RIB6. SeaFIC does not consider it appropriate to apply standard deemed value rates in an attempt to reduce misreporting. 148 Based on information received in submissions, MFish has amended the recommendations that were proposed in the IPP as follows. MFish recommends introducing differential deemed values in RIB7 to stop the deliberate over-fishing that appears to be carried out by a few fishers. Differential deemed values should have minimal impact on those fishers who are catching RIB7 as a genuine bycatch as differential deemed values should only impact on those fishers who are deliberately over-fishing RIB7. MFish also recommends that the deemed value rates for RIB5 are adjusted so that they mirror the interim and annual deemed value rates currently in place for RIB3 and RIB4. 149 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for RIB3, RIB4, RIB5, RIB6 and RIB7 for the 2008-09 season: a) b) 150 Annual deemed value rate to: i) RIB3: remain at $0.30 per kg; ii) RIB4: remain at $0.30 per kg; iii) RIB5: increase from $0.06 per kg to $0.30 per kg; iv) RIB6: remain at $0.80 per kg; v) RIB7: remain at $0.80 per kg; Interim deemed value rate to: vi) RIB3: remain at $0.15 per kg; vii) RIB4: remain at $0.15 per kg; viii) RIB5: increase from $0.03 per kg to $0.15 per kg; ix) RIB6: remain at $0.40 per kg; x) RIB7: remain at $0.40 per kg; MFish recommends introducing differential deemed value rates in RIB7 as outlined in the table below. Table 7: Proposed differential deemed value rates for RIB7 Current differential rates Proposed differential rates Current deemed value Catch in excess of rate for RIB3, RIB4, Catch in excess of ACE holdings (%) RIB5, RIB6 & RIB7 ($) ACE holdings (%) 10 20 Differential deemed values currently do not apply 87 Proposed deemed value rate for RIB3, RIB4, RIB5, RIB6 & RIB7 ($) 10 1.20 per kg 20 2.00 per kg Rough skate: RSK1 and RSK3 151 Rough skate occur throughout New Zealand, but are most abundant around the South Island in depths down to 500m. Most of the catch is taken as bycatch by bottom trawlers, but skate are also taken by longliners. 152 RSK1 and RSK3 have been included in this review because the deemed value rates for these fisheries are out of line with the other RSK stocks. The possibility that catches may be misreported as RSK1 or RSK3 to take advantage of the lower deemed values raises questions whether fishers have the appropriate incentives to acquire sufficient ACE, which you must take into account when setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (a). You may also have regard to any other matters you consider relevant in setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (b) (vi). By removing this difference in the deemed value rates there should not be any incentive to misreport RSK to take advantage of a lower deemed value rate in a neighbouring RSK fishery. 153 In RSK1, deemed value invoices of $564 were issued when 17% of ACE remained used during the 2006-2007 fishing year. In RSK3, deemed value invoices of $1,520 were issued when 17% of ACE remained used during the 2006-2007 fishing year. 154 This change also brings the deemed value rates for all rough skate in line with the deemed value rates for all smooth skate (SSK). MFish is aware that it can be difficult to identify each species of skate once it had been processed so the matching of deemed value rates should remove any opportunity to misreport the species of skate caught to take advantage of a lower deemed value rate. 155 Rough skate is listed on the 6th Schedule of the Fisheries Act and therefore it can be returned to the sea provided it is likely to survive. 156 ECO and SeaFIC supported the deemed value rates for RSK1 and RSK3 set out in the IPP. 157 AFL proposed either removing or setting the interim deemed value rate at the annual deemed value rate. 158 While submissions supported the proposed deemed value rates, MFish recommends taking no action at this time. MFish continues to be concerned that the differences in deemed value rates for RSK1 and RSK3 as compared to other RSK stocks and as compared to SSK stocks is an issue. However, the 2008-09 port price of $0.42 per kg would suggest that $0.44 per kg may be too high for RSK1 and RSK3. Further, catches in excess of TACCs in some RSK and SSK stocks suggests that cuts in other deemed values may not be appropriate. Rather than taking action now, MFish proposes to review comprehensively the deemed values for all RSK and SSK stocks prior to October 2009. 159 Therefore, MFish is making different recommendations to you than it proposed in the IPP. 160 MFish recommends you retain the existing deemed value rates for RSK1 and RSK3 for the 2008-09 season: 88 a) b) 161 Annual deemed value rate: i) RSK1: $0.23 per kg; ii) RSK3: $0.30 per kg; Interim deemed value rate: iii) RSK1: $0.22 per kg; iv) RSK3: $0.22 per kg; MFish recommends continuing to have no differential deemed value rates in these fisheries. Gemfish: SKI1 & SKI2 162 SKI2 is both a target fishery and a bycatch of the TAR2 trawl fishery. In five out of the last six fishing seasons SKI2 has been over-caught (123% of available ACE in the 2006-07 fishing season). 163 In October 2007, you approved an increase in the deemed value rates for SKI2. The purpose of this increase was to provide stronger incentives for fishers to acquire ACE to cover catches, consistent with the objectives of s 75 (2) (a). 164 However, the port price for SKI2 has dropped from $3.14 per kg in 2006-07 to $1.54 per kg in 2007-08 (a decrease of $1.60 per kg). This means that the annual deemed value of $1.75 is now above the port price. Fishers may now have an incentive to dump fish since the deemed value is greater than the price they receive for it. When fishers have incentives to dump fish, they do not have the appropriate incentives to acquire ACE, which s 75 (2) (a) requires you to take into account. It is therefore appropriate to consider a change to the deemed value. S 75 (2) (b) (i) also allows you specifically to have regard for discards. 165 In the IPP, MFish proposed a decrease to the annual deemed value rate to $1.29 to better reflect current market prices. 166 When MFish recommends a change to the deemed value for a stock, MFish reviews whether incentives may be created for fishers to misreport the QMA in which fish were caught. This may arise if fishers can avoid acquiring ACE by reporting the catch as coming from a different QMA and paying the deemed value for that misreported area. This incentive may be created when deemed values in two adjoining areas have different rates. At present, annual deemed values are higher in SKI1 ($2.64) than either the current ($1.75) or proposed deemed values for SKI2. When fishers misreport landings in order to take advantage of lower deemed value rates in some area, they fail to acquire ACE in the area where they actually caught the fish. This raises issues under s 75 (2) (a) about whether fishers have appropriate incentives to acquire ACE for the area where the fish are caught. 167 To remove any incentive for fishers to misreport SKI2 as coming from SKI1, MFish proposed that the deemed value rates for SKI1 was adjusted so it is in line with SKI2. 168 Area 2 Inshore, ECO and SeaFIC support the deemed value rates for SKI1 and SKI2 set out in the IPP. 89 169 SeaFIC submits that TACC for SKI2 should be reviewed urgently. SeaFIC submits a TACC increase has been sought based on perceived increasing abundance and managers at the working group are currently unwilling to agree to an increase citing the scientific evidence is inconclusive. SeaFIC submits that the review needs to be accelerated to address the TACC concerns. 170 Sanford did not support the lower deemed value rates for SKI1 and SKI2 set out in the IPP. 171 AFL did not support the deemed value rates for SKI1 and SKI2 set out in the IPP. AFL submitted that reducing the annual deemed value rates in SKI1 and SKI2 will continue to cause the deemed value rates to act as a cap on the ACE price. (AFL also proposed either removing or setting the interim deemed value rate at the annual deemed value rate. This option is not available under the Act.) 172 New information on gemfish stocks show the 2008-09 port price for SKI1 and SKI2 has increased from $1.54 per kg in 2007-08 to $1.74 per kg in 2008-09. Average ACE prices for 2006-07 were $1.21 in SKI1 and $0.61 in SKI2. The proposed rate of $1.29 in the IPP would seem to risk creating incentives to fish on deemed values rather than acquire ACE in SKI1. MFish agrees with AFL that by setting the annual deemed value at $1.29 as proposed in the IPP, it may create incentives to pay deemed values rather than to purchase ACE. Therefore, MFish recommends that a higher annual deemed value of $1.50 per kg be applied in SKI1 and SKI2. 173 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for SKI1 and SKI2 for the 2008-09 season: a) b) 174 Annual deemed value rate: i) to decrease from $2.64 per kg to $1.50 per kg in SKI1; ii) to decrease from $1.75 per kg to $1.50 per kg in SKI2; Interim deemed value rate: i) to decrease from $1.32 per kg to $0.75 per kg in SKI1; ii) to decrease from $0.88 per kg to $0.75 per kg in SKI1. MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 8: Proposed differential deemed value rates for SKI1 & SKI2 Catch in excess of ACE holdings (%) Current differential rates Current deemed Catch in excess value rate for SKI1 of ACE holdings ($) (%) Proposed differential rates Current deemed Catch in excess Proposed deemed value rate for SKI2 of ACE holdings value rate for SKI1 & ($) (%) SKI2 ($) 20 3.168 per kg 20 3.60 per kg 20 1.80 per kg 40 3.696 per kg 40 4.20 per kg 40 2.10 per kg 60 4.80 per kg 60 2.40 per kg 80 2.70 per kg 100 3.00 per kg 60 4.224 per kg 80 4.752 per kg 100 5.280 per kg 80 and over 5.40 per kg Sea perch: SPE8 175 Sea perch (SPE8) is a bycatch species of the deepwater fishery in QMA8. SPE8 is 90 included in the review because the port price has increased from $0.60 per kg to $1.76 per kg (an increase of $1.16 per kg). 176 The 2007-08 port price ($1.76 per kg) is higher than the annual deemed value rate ($0.24 per kg) suggesting fishers could fish, pay the deemed value and still realise a profit. 177 The rise in port price raises questions whether fishers have the appropriate incentives to acquire sufficient ACE, which you must take into account when setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (a). You may also have regard to the market value of the stock in setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (b) (iii). When the price of a species increases, there is an increased probability that incentives to land catches in excess of the TACC will arise 178 The port price for the other SPE fisheries has increased slightly (increases range from $0.01 per kg to $0.03 per kg). 179 In the IPP, MFish proposed to increase the annual deemed value rate for SPE8 so that it better reflects the port price in this fishery. 180 ECO and Sanford support the deemed value rates for SPE8 set out in the IPP. 181 AFL, Challenger and SeaFIC submitted that the 2008-09 port price for SPE8 should be used as this has fallen from $1.76 per kg to $0.52 per kg. 182 Based on information received in submissions, MFish is making different recommendations to you than it proposed in the IPP. 183 MFish agrees that the new port price means there is no reason to increase the current deemed value rates as they are providing the appropriate incentives required under s 75 (2) (a). 184 MFish recommends you retain the existing deemed value rates for SPE8 for the 200809 season: 185 a) Annual deemed value rate of $0.24 per kg b) Interim deemed value rate of $0.12 per kg MFish recommends continuing to have no differential deemed value rates in this fishery. Rig: SPO2 186 187 Rig (SPO) is caught as bycatch in most inshore trawl fisheries. SPO2 has been included in this review because: a) It has been consistently over caught in the last twelve fishing seasons (113% of available ACE in the 2006-07 fishing season). b) Deemed value invoices of $36,241 were issued at the end of the 2006-07 fishing season. The deemed value rates for SPO2 were changed in the October 2007 review to better 91 protect the TACC because of persistent over fishing. The 2007-08 port price for SPO2 of $2.82 per kg suggests the market value of rig has decreased. This may encourage fishers to discard fish since the annual deemed value rate is now above the port price. 188 Under s 75 (2) (a), you must consider whether there are appropriate incentives for fishers to acquire ACE. If fishers face inappropriate incentives to discard bycatch, then fishers may not have correct incentives to acquire ACE to cover their catches. And under s 75 (2) (b) (i), you may have regard for the desirability of avoiding incentives to discard fish. 189 The consistent over-fishing raises questions whether fishers have the appropriate incentives to acquire sufficient ACE, which you must take into account when setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (a). You may also have regard to the extent to which catch of the stock has exceeded or is likely to exceed the TACC for the stock in any year in setting deemed values under s 75 (2) (b) (v). 190 The differential deemed value rates for SPO2 were altered to set a lower over catch level to encourage fishers to balance with ACE as the majority of deeming was being carried out by two companies. One company has since left the fishery. The unique differential deemed value rates were also introduced because it has been overfished the past 12 fishing years. 191 In the IPP, MFish considered a decrease to the annual deemed value rate closer in line with port price was appropriate. MFish also considered that the unique differential deemed value rates may now be providing an incentive to dump fish since the ramped deemed value is greater than the price they receive for it. MFish proposed the differential deemed value rates would also change to reflect the proposed annual deemed value rate and revert to the standard ramping system. 192 ECO and SeaFIC supported the deemed value rates for SPO2 set out in the IPP. 193 SeaFIC submits that SPO2 is an unavoidable bycatch in inshore fisheries in QMA2. While the SPO2 TACC was increased in 2004, the increased TACC was still lower than a number of catches in the previous years. Consequently, it has been continued to be over-caught since that increase. 194 SeaFIC submits that since the port price for 2008/09 has increased to $3.63 per kg, an increase rather than a decrease in the deemed value would normally be supported. However, given the high abundance issue and a desire to ensure catches are accurately reported SeaFIC favours decreasing the deemed value as proposed by the Ministry. Therefore, SeaFIC supports the deemed value rates proposed in the IPP but for different reasons. 195 AFL did not support the deemed value rates for SPO2 set out in the IPP. AFL submitted that reducing the annual deemed value rates for SPO2 will continue to cause the deemed value rates to act as a cap on the ACE price. 196 Area 2 Inshore did not support the deemed value rates for SPO2 set out in the IPP. Area 2 inshore submitted that until the TACC for SPO2 is reviewed, it cannot support any changes to the deemed value rates. 92 197 Since the IPP was released, MFish has finalised the 2008-09 port price for SPO2 and it has increased from $2.82 per kg to $3.63 per kg. MFish agrees with AFL that setting the annual deemed value at $2.00 as proposed in the IPP may cap ACE prices. 198 Based on information received in submissions, MFish is making different recommendations to you than it proposed in the IPP. 199 Given the increase in port price, it is no longer necessary to drop the current deemed value rates as they are providing the appropriate incentives required under s 75 (2) (a). 200 However, MFish still recommends the change to the differential deemed value for SPO2 to return it to a standard ramping system. MFish believes that for this stock for the current year, this is an appropriate way to balance your responsibilities under s 75 (2) (a) to provide incentives for fishers to balance catches against ACE while also having regard for the objective of not creating incentives to discard, per s 75 (2) (b) (i). 201 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for SPO2 for the 2008-09 season: 202 a) Annual deemed value rate to remain at $3.00 per kg b) Interim deemed value rate to remain at $1.50 per kg MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 9: Proposed differential deemed value rates for SPO2 Current differential rates Proposed differential rates Proposed deemed Catch in excess of Current deemed value Catch in excess of value rate for SPO2 ACE holdings (%) rate for SPO2 ($) ACE holdings (%) ($) 10 6.00 per kg 25 8.00 per kg 50 11.00 per kg 20 3.60 per kg 40 4.20 per kg 60 4.80 per kg 80 5.40 per kg 100 6.00 per kg Broadbill swordfish: SWO1 203 Broadbill swordfish (SWO1) is both a bycatch in the bigeye and southern bluefin tuna fisheries and a target fishery. 204 In meeting your obligations to take account of the need to provide incentives for fishers to acquire ACE to cover their catches, per 75 (2) (a), MFish has generally advised you that the incentives will be appropriate if the deemed value rate is above the ACE price and below the landed price. If the deemed value is above the ACE price, then fishers have incentives to acquire ACE rather than pay deemed values. If the deemed value is below the landed value, then incentives are not created to misreport or to discard in order to avoid deemed value payments. SWO1 is included in this review because initial deemed value rates were set with limited information, in the absence of an active ACE market. Information from the ACE market is now available and can inform your decision-making on the appropriate deemed value. 93 205 MFish is concerned that the current level of the deemed value is close to port price. 206 Port price for SWO 1 ranges between $4.00-$6.51 on the basis of greenweight. The current annual deemed value is $4.25 (the interim deemed value is $2.13). 207 Ninety percent of ACE trades reported between 2004 and 2008 were at or below $1.18 per kg (excluding $0 and nominal trades of $1 a transaction). There is now evidence that the initial deemed value of $4.25 is well above the rate that is required to make it more economic to purchase ACE than to use deemed values. 208 MFish advises that you can continue to meet your obligations under 75 (2) (a) to provide incentives for fishers to acquire ACE while also giving greater regard to possible incentives to discard, per s 75 (2) (b) (i), by lowering the deemed value somewhat. 209 In the IPP, MFish proposed an annual deemed value rate of $3.00 per kg based on the 2007-08 port price ($6.51) and the ACE price ($1.18). 210 AFL, ECO and SeaFIC support the deemed value rates for SWO1 set out in the IPP 211 Sanford does not support the deemed value rates for SWO1 set out in the IPP. 212 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for SWO1 for the 2008-09 season: 213 a) Annual deemed value rate to decrease from $4.25 per kg to $3.00 per kg. b) Interim deemed value to decrease from $2.13 per kg to $1.50 per kg MFish recommends continuing to have no differential deemed value rates in this fishery. Stocks reviewed but no deemed value adjustment proposed 214 The remaining stocks listed in Tables 1 and 2 were also reviewed but following their assessment at the deemed value review group meeting, MFish does not consider an adjustment is warranted at this time, as the current deemed value rates are providing the appropriate incentives required under s 75 (2) (a). Further information on why MFish considers the deemed value rates for these stocks should remain unchanged for the coming season is described below. Barracouta: BAR5 215 Barracouta (BAR5) was included in this review because there has been deemed value payments when 16% of ACE remained unused during the 2006-07 fishing year. There has also been an increase in the port price from $0.19 per kg to $0.25 per kg. 216 Upon further investigation, one company incurred 100% of the total deemed value payments ($46,165) during the 2006-07 fishing year. This company has now gone into liquidation. When removing this company from the analysis, all other catch of BAR5 during the 2006-07 fishing season was balanced with ACE, so the current 94 deemed value rates are appropriate. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 217 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for BAR5 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $0.25 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.12 per kg. Blue shark: BWS1 218 Blue shark (BWS1) was included in this review because there has been deemed value payments when 62% of ACE remained unused during the 2006-07 fishing year. There has also been an increase in the port price from $0.17 per kg to $3.84 per kg. 219 In the IPP, MFish considered that, since only 42% of the TACC for BWS1 was caught during the 2006-07 fishing season and that it is also on the 6th Schedule of the Fisheries Act, the current deemed value rates were appropriate. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 220 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for BWS1 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $0.15 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.08 per kg. Elephant fish: ELE3 221 Elephant fish (ELE3) was included in this review because it is has been over caught the last four years. There has also been a slight increase in the port price from $1.80 per kg to $1.90 per kg. 222 In the IPP, MFish considered that, since the over catch has been relatively small (2% to 8% of the TACC) and the change in port price is minimal, the current deemed value rates were appropriate. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 223 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for ELE3 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $1.41 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $1.21 per kg. Frostfish: FRO8 224 Frostfish (FRO8) was included in this review because 111% of ACE was caught in the 2006-07 fishing year. It was also over caught the previous two years. 225 In the IPP, MFish decided due to a lack of information on this stock, it will monitor the situation in this fishery. This stock would be revisited next year, so the current deemed value rates were appropriate for the time being. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 95 226 Challenger supports retaining the current deemed value rates for FRO8. 227 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for FRO8 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $0.15 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.08 per kg. Garfish: GAR1 228 Garfish (GAR1) was included in this review because there has been an increase in the port price from $5.76 per kg to $8.41 per kg. 229 In the IPP, MFish considered that, since the TACC has never been breached and no deemed value payments were incurred in GAR1 during the 2006-07 fishing year, the current deemed value rates are appropriate. However, due to the large increase in port price, MFish would monitor the situation in this fishery and revisit this stock next year. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 230 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for GAR1 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $1.80 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.90 per kg. Grey mullet: GMU1 231 Grey mullet (GMU1) was included in this review because there has been deemed value payments when 14% of ACE remained unused during the 2006-07 fishing year. There has also been an increase in the port price from $2.55 per kg to $3.09 per kg. 232 In the IPP, MFish considered that, since the TACC was not breached, the current deemed value rates were appropriate. MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 233 AFL submits that the current annual deemed value rate for GMU1 is acting as a cap on ACE price. AFL proposes that the annual deemed value rate be increased to $1.50 per kg. 234 The average ACE price for the 2006-07 fishing year was $0.58 per kg for GMU1. This makes the current deemed value rate twice the average ACE price. MFish considers that the deemed value rate is not acting as a cap on ACE price. 235 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for GMU1 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $1.21 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.60 per kg. 96 Hake: HAK1 236 Hake (HAK1) was included in this review because it is the major bycatch species in the hoki fishery and is susceptible to over fishing as its shadow price is higher than its port price. 237 In the IPP, MFish considered that, since only 55% of the TACC for HAK1 was caught during the 2006-07 fishing season, the current deemed value rates were appropriate. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 238 AFL submits that the current annual deemed value rate for HAK1 is acting as a cap on ACE price. AFL proposes that the annual deemed value rate be increased to $1.50 per kg. 239 The average ACE price for the 2006-07 fishing year was $0.90 per kg for HAK1. This makes the current deemed value rate $0.27 per kg above the average ACE price. MFish considers that the deemed value rate is not acting as a cap on ACE price. However, MFish will monitor this fishery over the next year to see if the average ACE price continues to climb towards the annual deemed value rate. 240 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for HAK1 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $1.17 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.59 per kg. Hapuka/Bass: All HPB stocks 241 Hapuka/Bass (All HPB stocks) was included in this review because the port price for all HPB stocks fell during the 2006-07 fishing year. The fall in the port prices for the HPB stocks ranged from $0.23 per kg to $1.15 per kg. 242 In the IPP, MFish considered that, since only one of the TACCs for HPB (HPB3) was over caught during the 2006-07 fishing season and there was minimal deemed value payments when ACE remained unused in the remaining HPB stocks, the current deemed value rates were appropriate. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 243 Challenger supports retaining the current deemed value rates for all HPB stocks. 244 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for all HPB stocks for the 2008-09 season: a) Annual deemed value rate i) HPB1: $2.95 per kg; ii) HPB2: $2.52 per kg; iii) HPB3: $2.30 per kg; iv) HPB4: $1.80 per kg; v) HPB5: $1.80 per kg; 97 vi) HPB7: $2.83 per kg; vii) HPB8: $2.18 per kg; viii) HPB10: $2.95 per kg; b) Interim deemed value rate ix) HPB1: $1.48 per kg; x) HPB2: $1.26 per kg; xi) HPB3: $1.15 per kg; xii) HPB4: $0.90 per kg; xiii) HPB5: $0.90 per kg; xiv) HPB7: $1.42 per kg; xv) HPB8: $1.09 per kg; xvi) HPB10: $1.48 per kg. John dory: JDO2 & JDO7 245 John dory (JDO2 & JDO7) was included in this review because MFish decided, when it changed the deemed value rates for these stocks in October 2007, it would revisit these stocks to ensure the new deemed value rates were set at the correct level. 246 In the IPP, MFish considered that the changes made in October 2007, for the 2007-08 fishing year were providing the correct incentives in these fisheries. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 247 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for JDO2 and JDO7 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $5.25 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $2.62 per kg. Ling: All LIN stocks 248 Ling (LIN1, LIN2, LIN3, LIN4, LIN5, LIN6 & LIN7) was included in this review because there has been deemed value payments when ACE remains unused during the 2006-07 fishing year in all the LIN stocks except for LIN7 which was slightly over caught. There has also been a significant increase in the port price from $1.36 per kg to $3.07 per kg (all LIN stocks except for LIN1 which has increased to $2.24 per kg). 249 In the IPP, MFish considered that the changes made in October 2007 for the 2007-08 fishing year were providing the correct incentives in these fisheries. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 250 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for all LIN stocks for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $2.38 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $1.20 per kg. 98 Moki: MOK1 251 Moki (MOK1) was included in this review because there has been deemed value payments when 3% of ACE remained unused during the 2006-07 fishing year. There has also been a slight increase in the port price from $0.73 per kg to $0.91 per kg. 252 In the IPP, MFish considered that, since the TACC was not breached, the current deemed value rates were appropriate. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 253 AFL submits that the current annual deemed value rate for MOK1 is acting as a cap on ACE price. AFL proposes that the annual deemed value rate be increased to $1.20 per kg. 254 The average ACE price for the 2006-07 fishing year was $0.59 per kg for MOK1. This makes the current deemed value rate $0.29 per kg above the average ACE price. MFish considers that the deemed value rate is not acting as a cap on ACE price. However, MFish will monitor this fishery over the next year to see if the average ACE price continues to climb towards the annual deemed value rate. 255 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for MOK1 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $0.88 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.44 per kg. Orange roughy: ORH3B 256 Orange roughy (ORH3B) was included in this review because MFish is reviewing its TACC as part of the October 2008 sustainability round. It was also reviewed as part of the October 2007 deemed value review. 257 In the IPP, MFish considered that the changes made in October 2007 for the 2007-08 fishing year were providing the correct incentives in this fishery. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 258 ECO supports retaining the current deemed value rates for ORH3B. 259 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for ORH3B for the 2008-09 season regardless of the any decision regarding the TACC level of ORH3B: i) Annual deemed value rate of $4.00 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $2.00 per kg. Pilchard: PIL1 & PIL8 260 Pilchard (PIL1 & PIL8) was included in this review because when MFish thought the port price was significantly above the current deemed value rate. Upon further analysis, it was discovered that a clerical error explained the issue. 99 261 In the IPP, MFish considers that the current deemed value rates were providing the correct incentives in these fisheries. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 262 Challenger supports retaining the current deemed value rates for PIL1 and PIL8. 263 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for PIL1 and PIL8 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $0.60 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.30 per kg. Ruby fish: RBY3 & RBY4 264 Ruby fish (RBY3 & RBY4) was included in this review because 617% of ACE was caught in RBY4 and 118% of ACE was caught in RBY3 in the 2006-07 fishing year. 265 In the IPP, MFish considers that, since this is the first time RBY3 has ever been over caught, it would monitor the situation to see if this is an anomaly or deliberate over fishing. RBY4 has been over fished in the past three fishing seasons but this stock has a low TACC (6 tonnes) and is a low knowledge species. MFish decided that further investigation was required into these stocks to determine what was causing the over catch. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 266 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for RBY3 and RBY4 for the 2008-09 season: a) Annual deemed value rate i) RBY3: $0.03 per kg; ii) RBY4: $0.42 per kg; b) Interim deemed value rate iii) RBY3: $0.02 per kg; iv) RBY4: $0.21 per kg. Sea perch: SPE2 267 Sea perch (SPE2) was included in this review because 118% of ACE was caught in the 2006-07 fishing year. There has also been a slight increase in the port price from $0.60 per kg to $0.63 per kg. 268 In the IPP, MFish considered that, since SPE2 shows significant variation in the level of catch (under and over caught) on a year to year basis, it would continue to monitor this stock to see why catch is so variable. This stock will be revisited next year, so MFish decided that the current deemed value rates were appropriate for the time being. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 100 269 AFL submits that the current annual deemed value rate for SPE2 is acting as a cap on ACE price. AFL proposes that the annual deemed value rate be increased to $0.80 per kg. 270 MFish has re-evaluated the data currently available and believes that there is still not enough information available to justify increasing the current deemed value rates for SPE2. MFish will still revisit this stock next. 271 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for SPE2 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $0.07 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.04 per kg. Rig: SPO7 272 Rig (SPO7) was included in this review because 120% of ACE was caught in the 2006-07 fishing year. There has also been a slight decrease in the port price from $3.19 per kg to $2.82 per kg. 273 In the IPP, MFish considered that, since this is the first time this stock has been over caught in the past ten years, it would monitor the situation to see if this is an anomaly or deliberate over fishing. This stock would be revisited next year, so MFish decided that the current deemed value rates were appropriate for the time being. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 274 Challenger supports retaining the current deemed value rates for SPO7. 275 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for SPO7 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $2.80 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $1.40 per kg. Arrow squid: SQU1T 276 Arrow squid (SQU1T) was included in this review because 101% of ACE was caught and deemed value payments of $1,562,068 were incurred in the 2006-07 fishing year. 277 Upon further investigation, one company incurred 99.8% of the total deemed value payments ($1,558,641) during the 2006-07 fishing year. This company has now gone into liquidation. When removing this company from the analysis the remaining amount of deeming is within acceptable levels, so the current deemed value rates were appropriate. MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 278 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for SQU1T for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $0.88 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.44 per kg. 101 Smooth skate: SSK1 279 Smooth skate (SSK1) was included in this review because 157% of ACE was caught in the 2006-07 fishing year. There has also been a slight decrease in the port price from $0.39 per kg to $0.36 per kg. 280 In the IPP, MFish decided due to a lack of information on this stock, it would monitor the situation in this fishery. This stock would be revisited next year, so the current deemed value rates were appropriate for the time being. Also changes made to the deemed value rates for rough skate (RSK) brings them in line with the deemed value rates for smooth skate (SSK). Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 281 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for SSK1 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $0.44 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.22 per kg. Kina: SUR1A & SUR7A 282 Kina (SUR1A & SUR7A) was included in this review because there has been an increase in the port price of $0.40 per kg in SUR1A and SUR7A. Also there was discussion around whether kina should be managed as a high value single stock species under the deemed value review standard. 283 In the IPP, MFish considered that, the current port price was not sufficient enough to warrant kina being managed under the high value single stock species section of the deemed value review standard. MFish believed that the current deemed value rates provided an incentive for fishers to balance their catch with ACE. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 284 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for SUR1A and SUR7A for the 2008-09 season: a) Annual deemed value rate i) SUR1A: $1.70 per kg; ii) SUR7A: $1.94 per kg; b) Interim deemed value rate iii) SUR1A: $0.85 per kg; iv) SUR7A: $0.97 per kg. Tarakihi: TAR1 & TAR8 285 Tarakihi (TAR1 & TAR8) was included in this review because MFish decided, when it changed the deemed value rates for these stocks in October 2007, it would revisit these stocks to ensure the new deemed value rates were set at the correct level. 102 286 In the IPP, MFish considered that the changes made in October 2007 for the 2007-08 fishing year were providing the correct incentives in these fisheries. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 287 Challenger supports retaining the current deemed value rates for TAR1 and TAR8. 288 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for TAR1 and TAR8 for the 2008-09 season: c) Annual deemed value rate i) TAR1: $3.00 per kg; ii) TAR8: $2.50 per kg; d) Interim deemed value rate iii) TAR1: $1.50 per kg; iv) TAR8: $1.25 per kg. Trumpeter: TRU4 289 Trumpeter (TRU4) was included in this review because 107% of ACE was caught; the port price increased by $0.29 per kg and deemed value payments of $8,139 were incurred in the 2006-07 fishing year. 290 In the IPP, MFish considered that the current deemed value rates were providing the correct incentives in this fishery. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 291 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for TRU4 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $0.50 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.25 per kg. White warehou: WWA4 292 White warehou (WWA4) was included in this review because there has been deemed value payments when 9% of ACE remained unused during the 2006-07 fishing year. 293 In the IPP, MFish considered that the changes made in October 2007 for the 2007-08 fishing year were providing the correct incentives in this fishery. Therefore, MFish did not propose an adjustment to the deemed value rates in the IPP. 294 AFL submits that the current annual deemed value rate for WWA4 is acting as a cap on ACE price. AFL proposes that the annual deemed value rate be increased to $1.20 per kg. 295 The ACE price for the 2006-07 fishing year was $0.40 per kg for WWA4. This makes the current deemed value rate more than double the average ACE price. MFish considers that the deemed value rate is not acting as a cap on ACE price. 103 296 MFish recommends that you retain the existing deemed value rates for WWA4 for the 2008-09 season: i) Annual deemed value rate of $1.03 per kg; ii) Interim deemed value rate of $0.52 per kg. Compliance implications 297 The proposed changes to the deemed value rates could provide an incentive for commercial fishers to dump or misreport their catch rather than pay the higher deemed value rates. There are indicators that suggest that such offending is occurring in GUR3. 298 Dumping and misreporting are serious offences and will be investigated and prosecuted wherever possible. MFish will continue to monitor fishing activities to detect and deter potential dumping. These efforts will be supported by the increased surveillance capability at sea through Project Protector and upgraded aircraft. Likewise, MFish Compliance’s activities will continue to include inspections of vessels, landings and transfers, and analysis of returns to detect and deter potential misreporting. 104 Statutory consideration 299 Section 8 – Section 8 of the Act describes the purpose of the Act as being to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. The proposed rates presented will continue to provide for utilisation and will ensure that possible TACC breaches do not occur which could undermine sustainability. 300 Section 9 – Section 9 sets out the environmental principles that should be taken into account when exercising or performing functions, duties or powers under the Act. These principles have been taken into account and MFish is of the view that the proposed rates are consistent with the environmental principles of the Act. 301 Section 10 – Section 10 sets out the information principles that should be taken into account when exercising or performing functions, duties or powers under the Act. The Minister must when considering his decision regarding the proposed rates, also take into account the principles set out in s. 10. 302 Section 75 - Section 75 of the Act sets out the requirements of when and how deemed value rates should be set. MFish considers that the proposed adjustments to the deemed value rates best meet the requirements under this section of the Act. 303 Section 75 (2)(a) – Section 75 (2) (a) requires the Minister to take into account the need to provide an incentive for every commercial fisher to acquire or maintain sufficient ACE that is not less than the total of that stock taken by the commercial fisher. MFish considers that the Deemed Value Standard satisfies the requirements under this section of the Act. 304 Section 75 (2)(b) – Section 75 (2) (b) sets out the matters the Minister may have regard to when setting deemed values. These factors have formed the basis of the content of the information sheets (see Appendix 2). These matters have been considered in the assessment of proposed deemed value adjustments for each stock as set out in the “Analysis” section of this IPP. 305 Section 75 (4) – Section 75 (4) permits the Minister to set different deemed value rates in respect of the same stock which apply to different levels of catch in excess of annual catch entitlement. This is the authority under which differential deemed value rates have been proposed for the some stocks. 306 Section 75 (6) – Section 75 (6) details the constraints on the Minister when setting deemed value rates. MFish believes these constraints have been duly considered in developing the deemed value rates proposed in this paper. 307 Section 75 (7) – Section 75 (7) gives the Minister the authority to amend deemed value rates. This is the authority under which the proposed amendments to the deemed value rates are being made for some stocks 162 Section 75A – The Minister is required when practicable, to conduct consultation prior to setting any interim or annual deemed value rates. MFish will to consult on the proposed deemed values, on behalf of the Minister with persons or organisations that are representative of classes of persons who have an interest in these stocks. 105 Summary of the Guidelines for Setting Deemed Values (2007) Aim To set a deemed value rate above the ACE price to encourage fishers to balance catch through the purchase of ACE rather than the payment of deemed values. For high value single species stocks, the deemed value rate will be considerably above the ACE price. When is a deemed value reviewed? (1) When a fish stock enters the QMS. (2) If one of the following indicators listed below is met: • Catch is in excess of a TACC • Deemed value payments invoiced in the previous fishing year but ACE remained unused • Changes to the port price of the stock • Direct request from SeaFIC on behalf of quota owners • Recent changes to a stock’s TACC or the TACC of key bycatch stocks • Stock has recently entered the QMS and the deemed value rate was set using limited information. How are deemed values set? Deemed values will be set on a stock by stock basis for all fish stocks apart from those categorised as high value fishstocks. High value fishstocks These are high value single species stocks: paua, rock lobster, scallops, oysters and eels. Deemed values set following analysis of the following information sources: 1. Port price 2. ACE trading price Information sources used 3. Export prices as a proxy for market value (where appropriate) 4. Bycatch information (ratios and shadow values) 5. Review of previous deemed value payments 6. Cost recovery levy rates Annual deemed values Set at 200% of the highest port price. Interim deemed values Greater flexibility in setting interim deemed value rates. Interim deemed values will continue to be set at 50% of the annual deemed value as standard, but higher interim values may be used to ensure regular balancing Differential Differential deemed values maintained but flexibility in when and 106 deemed values All other Fish stocks how they are applied. The goal is to set the deemed values set on a stock by stock basis using the best available information for that stock. The goal will be to set the deemed value rate at some level above the marginal price of ACE. Deemed values set following analysis of the following information sources 1. Port price 2. ACE trading price Information sources used 3. Export prices as a proxy for market value (where appropriate) 4. Bycatch information (ratios and shadow values) 5. Review of previous deemed value payments 6. Cost recovery levy rates Annual deemed values Interim deemed values Annual deemed value set above the ACE price. Greater flexibility in setting interim deemed value rates. Interim deemed values will not automatically be set at 50% of the annual deemed value as standard. Differential deemed Differential deemed values maintained but flexibility in when and how they are applied. values 107 Section Three Summary of Recommendations 108 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Orange roughy (ORH 3B) 1 MFish recommends that you: AGREE to a) i) Reduce the TAC for ORH 3B from 11,025 tonnes to 9,890 t and the TACC from 10,500 tonnes to 9,420 tonnes; and ii) Set an allowance of 470 t for other sources of fishing related mortality; and iii) Retain zero allowances within the TAC for customary Maori and recreational fishing interests; AND e) Request that Industry implement the following sub-stock catch limits within the TACC: i) East and South Chatham Rise be reduced to 6,570 t; ii) Catch limits for the Northwest Chatham Rise, Arrow Plateau, Puysegur and Sub-Antarctic sub-areas remain unchanged and the 500 t feature limits in the Sub-Antarctic sub-area remain in place; iii) Retain a catch limit of 250 t for Industry research surveys; AND f) Request that Industry continue to spread catch across ORH 3B and continue to monitor catch against voluntary catch limits; AND g) Request that Industry confirm the voluntary agreement on catch limits within ORH 3B and; • continue to submit annual updates and specific DWG annual agreements that pertain to the ORH 3B fishery to MFish; • continue to submit monthly monitoring reports pertaining to catch levels by both sub-stock and sub-area to MFish; • continue to notify MFish when catch reaches 80% of the sub-stock and sub-area limits, and notify MFish when any limit has been reached. NOTE that d) This decision initiates a three year staged transition to an FMSY-based harvest strategy for the East and South Chatham Rise whereby the annual catch limit is 4.5% of the best available estimate of current biomass. e) Further TAC changes will be necessary to alter the catch limit for the East and South Chatham Rise to the FMSY-based yield over 3 years. The quantum of the 109 necessary catch limit changes will be derived annually and you will be provided with management advice for 1 October 2009 and 1 October 2010. f) When fully implemented the FMSY-based harvest strategy will embed the method of calculating the recommended annual catch limit for the East and South Chatham Rise. Deemed value rates for selected fishstocks Blue cod: BCO3 2 3 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for BCO3 for the 2008-09 season: a) Annual deemed value rate to increase from $3.25 per kg to $3.75 per kg b) Interim deemed value rate to increase from $1.63 per kg to $2.50 per kg MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 3: Proposed differential deemed value rates for BCO3 Current differential rates Proposed differential rates Catch in excess Current deemed Catch in excess Proposed deemed of ACE holdings value rate for BCO3 of ACE holdings value rate for BCO3 (%) ($) (%) ($) 20 3.90 per kg 20 4.50 per kg 40 4.55 per kg 40 5.25 per kg 60 5.20 per kg 60 6.00 per kg 80 5.85 per kg 80 6.75 per kg 100 6.50 per kg 100 7.50 per kg Gurnard: GUR3 4 5 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for GUR3 for the 2008-09 season: a) Retain the existing annual deemed value rate of $1.60 per kg. b) Retain the existing interim deemed value rate of $0.80 per kg. MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. 110 Table 4: Proposed differential deemed value rates for GUR3 Current differential rates Catch in excess Current deemed of ACE holdings value rate for (%) GUR3 ($) Proposed differential rates Catch in excess Proposed deemed of ACE holdings value rate for GUR3 (%) ($) 20 1.92 per kg 50 2.08 per kg 40 2.24 per kg 60 2.56 per kg 60 2.56 per kg 80 2.88 per kg 80 2.88 per kg 100 3.20 per kg 100 3.20 per kg Kingfish: KIN7 & KIN8 6 MFish recommends the following deemed value rates for KIN7 and KIN8 for the 2008-09 season, however you can choose to set the deemed value rates for both stocks at a level that you consider is appropriate, considering your obligations under section 75 of the Act. 7 Annual deemed value rate to increase: i) KIN7: from $8.90 per kg to $10.00 per kg; ii) KIN8: from $8.90 per kg to $10.00 per kg; b) Interim deemed value rate to increase: 8 iii) KIN7: from $4.45 per kg to $5.00 per kg; iv) KIN8: from $4.45 per kg to $5.00 per kg; MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 5: Proposed differential deemed value rates for KIN7 & KIN8 Current differential rates Catch in excess Current deemed of ACE holdings value rate for KIN7 (%) & KIN8 ($) Proposed differential rates Catch in excess Proposed deemed of ACE holdings value rate for KIN7 & (%) KIN8 ($) 20 10.80 per kg 20 12.00 per kg 40 12.60 per kg 40 14.00 per kg 60 14.40 per kg 60 16.00 per kg 80 16.20 per kg 80 18.00 per kg 100 18.00 per kg 100 20.00 per kg Parore: All PAR stocks 9 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for all PAR stocks for the 2008-09 season: c) d) Annual deemed value rate to: i) PAR1: increase from $0.31 per kg to $0.34 per kg; ii) PAR2: increase from $0.31 per kg to $0.34 per kg; iii) PAR9: remain at $0.34; Interim deemed value rate to: 111 iv) PAR1: increase from $0.16 per kg to $0.17 per kg; v) PAR2: increase from $0.16 per kg to $0.17 per kg; vi) PAR9: remain at $0.17 per kg; 10 Because there is no fishing for PAR10 (in the Kermadec area), deemed values do not affect the incentives to acquire ACE for FMA 10, per 75 (2) (a). Therefore, MFish recommends that you make no changes for deemed values for PAR10. 11 MFish recommends continuing to have no differential deemed value rates in these fisheries. Paua: All PAU Stocks 12 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for all PAU stocks for the 2008-09 season: c) d) Annual deemed value rate to increase: i) PAU1: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; ii) PAU2: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; iii) PAU3: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; iv) PAU4: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; v) PAU5A: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; vi) PAU5B: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; vii) PAU5D: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; viii) PAU6: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; ix) PAU7: from $60.00 per kg to $66.00 per kg; Interim deemed value rate to increase: x) PAU1: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xi) PAU2: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xii) PAU3: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xiii) PAU4: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xiv) PAU5A: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xv) PAU5B: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xvi) PAU5D: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xvii) PAU6: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; xviii) PAU7: from $30.00 per kg to $50.00 per kg; 13 Because there is no fishing for PAU10 (in the Kermadec area), deemed values do not affect the incentives to acquire ACE for FMA 10, per 75 (2) (a). Therefore, MFish recommends that you make no changes for deemed values for PAU10. 112 14 MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 6: Proposed differential deemed value rates for all PAU stocks Current differential rates Catch in excess Current deemed value rate for all of ACE holdings (%) PAU stocks ($) Proposed differential rates Catch in excess Proposed deemed of ACE holdings value rate for all PAU (%) stocks ($) 20 72.00 per kg 20 40 84.00 per kg 40 79.20 per kg 92.40 per kg 60 96.00 per kg 60 105.60 per kg 80 108.00 per kg 80 118.80 per kg 100 120.00 per kg 100 132.00 per kg Porae: All POR stocks 15 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for all POR stocks for the 2008-09 season: c) d) Annual deemed value rate to: i) POR1: remain at $1.35 per kg; ii) POR2: increase from $0.69 per kg to $1.35 per kg; iii) POR3: remain at $1.35 per kg; Interim deemed value rate to: iv) POR1: remain at $0.68 per kg; v) POR2: increase from $0.35 per kg to $0.68 per kg; vi) POR3: remain at $0.68 per kg; 16 Because fishing is not allowed for POR10, deemed values do not affect the incentives to acquire ACE for FMA 10, per 75 (2) (a). Therefore, MFish recommends advises that you make no changes for deemed values for POR10. 17 MFish recommends continuing to have no differential deemed value rates in these fisheries. Ribaldo: RIB3, RIB4, RIB5, RIB6 & RIB7 18 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for RIB3, RIB4, RIB5, RIB6 and RIB7 for the 2008-09 season: c) Annual deemed value rate to: i) RIB3: remain at $0.30 per kg; ii) RIB4: remain at $0.30 per kg; iii) RIB5: increase from $0.06 per kg to $0.30 per kg; iv) RIB6: remain at $0.80 per kg; v) RIB7: remain at $0.80 per kg; 113 d) 19 Interim deemed value rate to: vi) RIB3: remain at $0.15 per kg; vii) RIB4: remain at $0.15 per kg; viii) RIB5: increase from $0.03 per kg to $0.15 per kg; ix) RIB6: remain at $0.40 per kg; x) RIB7: remain at $0.40 per kg; MFish recommends introducing differential deemed value rates in RIB7 as outlined in the table below. Table 7: Proposed differential deemed value rates for RIB7 Current differential rates Proposed differential rates Current deemed value Catch in excess of rate for RIB3, RIB4, Catch in excess of ACE holdings (%) RIB5, RIB6 & RIB7 ($) ACE holdings (%) 10 20 Differential deemed values currently do not apply Proposed deemed value rate for RIB3, RIB4, RIB5, RIB6 & RIB7 ($) 10 1.20 per kg 20 2.00 per kg Rough skate: RSK1 and RSK3 20 MFish recommends you retain the existing deemed value rates for RSK1 and RSK3 for the 2008-09 season: c) d) 21 Annual deemed value rate: i) RSK1: $0.23 per kg; ii) RSK3: $0.30 per kg; Interim deemed value rate: iii) RSK1: $0.22 per kg; iv) RSK3: $0.22 per kg; MFish recommends continuing to have no differential deemed value rates in these fisheries. Gemfish: SKI1 & SKI2 22 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for SKI1 and SKI2 for the 2008-09 season: a) b) Annual deemed value rate: i) to decrease from $2.64 per kg to $1.50 per kg in SKI1; ii) to decrease from $1.75 per kg to $1.50 per kg in SKI2; Interim deemed value rate: i) to decrease from $1.32 per kg to $0.75 per kg in SKI1; 114 ii) 23 to decrease from $0.88 per kg to $0.75 per kg in SKI1. MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 8: Proposed differential deemed value rates for SKI1 & SKI2 Current differential rates Current deemed Catch in excess value rate for SKI1 of ACE holdings ($) (%) Catch in excess of ACE holdings (%) Proposed differential rates Current deemed Catch in excess Proposed deemed value rate for SKI2 of ACE holdings value rate for SKI1 & ($) (%) SKI2 ($) 20 3.168 per kg 20 3.60 per kg 20 1.80 per kg 40 3.696 per kg 40 4.20 per kg 40 2.10 per kg 60 4.80 per kg 60 2.40 per kg 80 2.70 per kg 100 3.00 per kg 60 4.224 per kg 80 4.752 per kg 100 5.280 per kg 80 and over 5.40 per kg Sea perch: SPE8 24 25 MFish recommends you retain the existing deemed value rates for SPE8 for the 200809 season: a) Annual deemed value rate of $0.24 per kg b) Interim deemed value rate of $0.12 per kg MFish recommends continuing to have no differential deemed value rates in this fishery. Rig: SPO2 26 27 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for SPO2 for the 2008-09 season: a) Annual deemed value rate to remain at $3.00 per kg b) Interim deemed value rate to remain at $1.50 per kg MFish recommends adjusting differential deemed value rates as outlined in the table below. Table 9: Proposed differential deemed value rates for SPO2 Current differential rates Proposed differential rates Proposed deemed Catch in excess of Current deemed value Catch in excess of value rate for SPO2 ACE holdings (%) rate for SPO2 ($) ACE holdings (%) ($) 10 6.00 per kg 25 8.00 per kg 50 11.00 per kg 20 3.60 per kg 40 4.20 per kg 60 4.80 per kg 80 5.40 per kg 100 6.00 per kg Broadbill swordfish: SWO1 28 MFish recommends you approve the following deemed value rates for SWO1 for the 2008-09 season: 115 29 a) Annual deemed value rate to decrease from $4.25 per kg to $3.00 per kg. b) Interim deemed value to decrease from $2.13 per kg to $1.50 per kg MFish recommends continuing to have no differential deemed value rates in this fishery. Tom Chatterton Manager Deepwater and National Issues APPROVED / NOT APPROVED / APPROVED AS AMENDED Hon Jim Anderton Minister of Fisheries / / 2008 116
© Copyright 2024