1. finance
2. investing
3. options

Review of Regulatory Measures and Other Management
Controls for 1 October 2008
Initial Position Paper
12 March 2008
1
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - DAILY COMPLETION OF CERTAIN FIELDS
ON TCEPR, SJCER AND TLCER FORMS ............................................................................ 5
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - CORRECTION OF COORDINATES AND
DESCRIPTION ERRORS IN CHALLENGER AREA REGULATIONS............................. 11
INITIAL POSITION PAPER- PROPOSAL TO LIST PRAWN KILLER (PRK) ON
THE SIXTH SCHEDULE OF THE FISHERIES ACT 1996 ................................................. 18
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - LOCALISED DEPLETION OF BLUE COD IN THE
MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS................................................................................................. 27
INITIAL POSITION PAPER– LOCAL DEPLETION OF HAPUKU/ BASS IN THE
CENTRAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AREA ................................................................ 64
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAINERS HOLDING
FRESHWATER EELS ............................................................................................................ 86
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - REPORTING OF NON-DEFINED PROCESSED
STATES................................................................................................................................... 94
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - REGULATORY MEASURES RELATING TO
PROCEDURES FOR WEIGHING FISH PACKED AND FROZEN AT SEA ................... 112
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - TAGGING SCHEME FOR SOUTHERN BLUEFIN
TUNA .................................................................................................................................... 163
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - REVIEW OF HIGH SEAS FISHING PERMITS .............. 187
2
INTRODUCTION
1
This Initial Position Paper (IPP) provides you with the Ministry of Fisheries’ (MFish)
initial position on management controls that MFish is reviewing for 1 October 2008.
2
This IPP has been developed for the purpose of consultation as required under the
Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act). MFish emphasises the views and recommendations
outlined in each paper are preliminary and are provided as a basis for consultation
with stakeholders.
3
Each paper has regard to the legal obligations required under the Act. MFish does not
intend to use the IPP, and the consideration of proposals contained within it, to debate
in full its generic statutory interpretations. The section of the IPP that discusses
generic statutory interpretations should guide the reader when interpreting each of the
individual papers.
4
Initial positions in each paper consider recent research, analysis of commercial and
non-commercial catch data, and any other relevant information.
5
The individual papers within the IPP presents and analyse information with the aim of
focusing each paper on fisheries management outcomes. In particular, the body of the
advice places an emphasis on analysis and application of the facts to the issues that
need to be addressed. Most technical information has been attached as an Appendix
to some papers.
6
In May 2008, MFish will compile the Final Advice Paper. This document will
summarise MFish and stakeholder views on those issues being reviewed, and will
provide final advice to the Minister of Fisheries and recommendations for each issue
A copy of the Final Advice Paper and subsequently the Minister’s letter setting out his
final decisions will be posted on the MFish website as soon as it becomes available
and hard copies will be available on request.
Deadline for Submissions
7
All written submissions on this consultation document must be received by MFish by
Wednesday, 23 April 2008. If you intend to make a submission but need an extension
of time, please contact:
Tracey Steel,
Ph (04) 819 4548
Late submissions may not be able to be considered for the Final Advice Paper.
3
8
Written submissions should be sent directly to:
Tracey Steel,
Executive Assistant,
Ministry of Fisheries,
P O Box 1020,
Wellington;
or faxed to 04 819 4208
or emailed to [email protected]
9
All submissions are subject to the Official Information Act 1982 and can be released,
if requested, under the Act. If you have specific reasons for wanting to have your
submission withheld, please set out your reasons in the submission. MFish will
consider those reasons when making any assessment for the release of submissions if
requested under the Official Information Act 1982.
4
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - DAILY COMPLETION OF
CERTAIN FIELDS ON TCEPR, SJCER AND TLCER
FORMS
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries is proposing an amendment to the Fisheries (Reporting)
Regulations 2001 (the regulations), to remove ambiguity in the current wording that
prescribes the timing in which TCEPR, SJCER and TLCERs 1 are to be completed.
The Minister’s decision is to be made in the context of section 297 of the Act which
prescribes powers for general regulations, including those that set out the manner and
form in which returns are to be kept or provided. The objective of the proposed
amendment is to remove ambiguity in the wording of the regulations and, through
that, to remove an opportunity to misreport. This opportunity arises from the lack of
an explicit obligation in the regulations to complete catch and effort information in
these returns on a daily basis.
2
The Ministry’s proposal is to amend the regulations to require catch and effort
information to be completed on a daily (or part-daily) basis on the returns (Option 2).
This is a one-off, cost-effective way of addressing the problem. Aside from the status
quo (Option 1), an alternative option is for the Chief Executive to direct permit
holders to complete this information on a daily basis (Option 3). Options 2 and 3
would result in the desired outcome, that is, a clear requirement for permit holders to
complete catch and effort data in their forms on a daily basis. Option 3 however,
would not address the ambiguity present in the regulations and would demand an
ongoing process and cost to inform new permit holders of the particular requirement.
3
In making a decision the Minister should consider the importance of timely and
accurate reporting to the integrity of the Quota Management System (QMS). The
Minister should also take into account that the status quo presents a potential threat to
the effective use of surveillance and enforcement resources, and creates an
opportunity to offend (ie. to misreport or conceal dumping). The current wording of
the regulations undermines the requirement for accurate and timely sets of
information about different stages of the fishing activity. The logical solution is to
amend the regulations to clarify the timing in which the returns are to be completed.
For those fishers who follow the instructions on the returns and their explanatory
notes, nothing would change in practice. The proposed changes would only affect
opportunistic permit holders who take advantage of the current ambiguity in
regulations.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
4
This IPP has been reviewed by MFish and has been deemed not significant as it
simply clarifies the wording of the regulations and does not propose a drastic change
1
Trawl Catch Effort Processing Return, Squid Jigging Catch Effort Return and Tuna Longlining Catch Effort
Return
5
or additional requirement for permit holders. For this reason, this amendment does not
warrant a Regulatory Impact Statement.
The Issue
5
The QMS and the integrity of its compliance regime rely on accurate and timely
reporting of fishing activities and transactions. The current wording of the regulations
that prescribe TCEPR, SJCER and TLCERs is not explicit about the requirement to
complete catch and effort information during each day or part day of a fishing trip.
The regulations require fishers to fill in these details “for” each day, rather than on
each day, as required for other returns. Although in some cases the return themselves,
or their explanatory notes, do outline that this information is “to be completed on each
day at sea”, the fact that the requirement is not also included in the individual
regulations creates some ambiguity and makes the requirement legally questionable.
This is an unintentional effect of the specific wording of the regulations when they
were first introduced.
6
This ambiguity can be exploited by permit holders to complete this information at any
time up to the time of submitting the return, when all parts of the return can be
completed together, which is not supposed to happen. This is a disadvantage for the
Ministry’s compliance and enforcement activities as the ambiguity in the wording of
the regulations creates an opportunity for misreporting. It also undermines the
rationale for specific fields in the returns (ie. to obtain different sets of information on
catch and subsequent activities as they occur, allowing for cross-validation and
discrepancy analysis 2). For example, a Fishery Officer conducting an inspection needs
to see catch information recorded on a return in order to compare it to what is being
landed or held on board. If the master of the vessel (or other authorised person) is not
committing catch information to paper as required (during each day or part-day), it is
more difficult to detect possible offending (ie. misreporting or dumping). This
undermines the compliance regime and its role in contributing to fisheries
management objectives.
7
If the issue is not resolved, opportunistic permit holders can continue to take
advantage of the situation. This would continue to undermine investigations into
misreporting and would reduce the potential effectiveness of enforcement resources
(e.g. during vessel and landing inspections). Misreporting is believed to be occurring
in several fisheries for which the returns are to be completed 3 (particularly those for
which TCEPRs are to be completed) and ambiguity created by the wording of the
regulations is already providing an opportunity for this type of offending to occur.
Misreporting has negative implications for sustainability and legitimate utilisation as
it distorts the quality of the information used in fisheries management decisions.
2
Comparison of information obtained from various sources to detect misreporting and other offences. For
instance, this may involve comparing the data on the ‘catch’ section of a TCEPR, against the ‘processing’
section of the same form and subsequently against the data reported on a CLR, MHR and LFRR. Inconsistencies
and discrepancies may reveal misreporting and other offences.
3
TCEPRs are to be provided for trawlers over 28 metres in overall length, which typically target middle depth
and deepwater species such as orange roughy, hoki or southern blue whiting. SJCERs are to be provided for
squid jigging vessels, which target squid. TLCERs are to be provided by tuna longlining vessels, which target
tuna.
6
8
By clarifying the requirement to complete certain information on a daily basis in the
returns, the proposed amendment would allow a more effective use of enforcement
and surveillance resources. This would strengthen the role of the compliance regime
in contributing to fisheries management objectives. In this context, a decision to
amend the regulations as proposed is desirable.
Summary of Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
9
Make no amendment to the regulations; the ambiguity in the regulations would
continue undermining the reporting requirements, which are an integral component of
the QMS.
Option 2 – Amendment for daily completion of fields – Preferred Option
10
Amend the relevant regulations (11(2)(a), 12(2)(a) and 13(2)(a)) to clarify the
wording of the requirement to complete certain fields of the returns on a daily basis
(or more frequently). The benefit of this option would be removing the ambiguity
described earlier and creating consistency between different returns with a one-off
amendment to the regulations (preferred option).
Option 3 – Daily completion of fields without amendment – Alternative
Option
11
Alternatively, the Chief Executive could use regulation 40 of the regulations to
specify different intervals, periods, or dates for completing returns (from those
outlined in the regulations). This would allow the Chief Executive to direct relevant
permit holders to complete the necessary fields on these returns on a daily basis.
Although this option would address the problem to some extent, an ongoing
administrative process and cost would be necessary in order to inform new permit
holders. Additionally, the ambiguity in the regulations would continue to exist under
this option. Regulation 40 is for a purpose other than to set the basic reporting
framework, as in this case. That provision is generally for targeted detailed
requirements that would apply to individual permit holders only in exceptional
circumstances. For these reasons, this is not the preferred option.
Rationale for Management Options
12
An amendment to the regulations is proposed under section 297 of the Act, which
allows for the creation of regulations for a variety of purposes. In deciding to clarify
the timing of certain reporting requirements, the Minister should take into account the
role and importance of the reporting requirements in the context of the QMS and the
problems that the existing legal ambiguity is causing.
7
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
13
The status quo allows permit holders to complete catch and effort information in the
relevant returns up to the time of submitting them. This creates opportunities for
misreporting and undermines the rationale for specific fields in the returns, which is to
provide different sets of information on catch and subsequent activities for crosschecking and validation. This undermines the intended role of reporting requirements
in support of the integrity of the QMS. As there is no explicit legal obligation to
complete catch and effort information on a daily basis on certain returns, it could be
difficult for a Fishery Officer to detect possible misreporting if the permit holder takes
advantage of this loophole. Under the status quo, opportunistic permit holders can
continue taking advantage of the situation, undermining investigations into
misreporting. Aside from this, the status quo would maintain an inconsistency
between the completion timing requirements for different returns, which is not
desirable.
Costs
14
The main cost of the status quo would come from maintaining a loophole in the
reporting requirements which may continue to be abused. Considering the prevalence
with which misreporting is believed to occur in certain fisheries, this is a serious
concern. Such abuse may become prevalent if more permit holders become aware of
the existing legal ambiguity. This could present risks to achieving fisheries
management objectives and the sustainability of stocks. The opportunity to misreport
that the status quo presents can potentially result in high costs as fishers evade QMS
obligations, particularly in relatively high-value fisheries (e.g. orange roughy, tuna).
Benefits
15
Aside from not incurring additional regulatory amendment and education costs, the
status quo presents no benefits.
Option 2 – Amendment for daily completion of fields
Impact
16
Option 2 would clarify the timing of the requirement to complete certain fields on the
mentioned returns, making it consistent with other returns and removing the existing
ambiguity and opportunity to misreport.
Costs
17
Option 2 would result in some minor administrative costs necessary for regulatory
amendments, and in costs to inform relevant permit holders of the clarified
requirement in the regulations. There would be no additional costs for fishers as the
requirement for daily completion of certain fields is consistent with the requirements
for other returns and, if fishers have been following existing instructions on the form
8
and explanatory notes, no additional action or change on their behalf would be
necessary.
Benefits
18
Option 2 would be a significant improvement from the status quo as it would allow a
more effective use of surveillance and enforcement resources; it removes an
opportunity for permit holders to conceal illegal activity by clarifying the required
timing of completion of catch and effort fields in certain returns. The benefit falls
mainly on the effectiveness of the compliance regime, and through that, on its
contribution to fisheries management objectives. Additionally, if the form is
completed on a daily basis, or more frequently as required, the information is likely to
be more accurate than if it was completed days after the fishing activity occurred. The
benefit of clarifying the timing of completion therefore also includes an improvement
on the quality of information received by the Ministry.
Option 3 – Daily completion of fields without amendment
Impact
19
Option 3 would resolve the issue in part by removing the opportunity to misreport as
relevant permit holders would be directed by the Chief Executive to complete certain
fields on their returns on a daily basis, but would not remove the ambiguity and
inconsistency in the wording of the regulations. The provision that allows the Chief
Executive to do this is not supposed to set out the basic reporting framework, instead
it allows for exceptions to this framework in special circumstances; the requirement
should be in the regulations themselves.
Costs
20
A cost associated with this option would be maintaining an administrative process to
inform relevant new permit holders of the requirement to complete certain fields on a
daily basis. This is an unnecessary procedure and cost. No additional costs would be
incurred by fishers as this Option would just create consistency with other completion
requirements.
Benefits
21
As per Option 2, removing an opportunity to misreport and potentially improving the
quality of information are also benefits of Option 3. Additionally, the minor savings
made from not making a regulatory amendment are also a benefit. This benefit
however is believed to be far outweighed by the cost of maintaining a process to
inform new permit holders of a directive from the Chief Executive.
Statutory Considerations
22
In considering the proposed amendments, the Minister is required to follow relevant
statutory criteria contained in the Act. These criteria are set out below.
23
Section 10 states that the best available information should be taken into account
when making decisions that affect utilisation or sustainability of fishery resources. By
9
clarifying the wording of the regulations that prescribe that returns are to be
completed during the day or part of a day in which fishing activity occurs, rather than
days later, the proposed amendment would improve the accuracy of information
received by the Ministry; information which is later used in decisions that affect
utilisation and sustainability.
24
Section 189 outlines the persons required to keep and provide accounts, records,
returns (including those mentioned above) and other information required by
regulations made under the Act. No additional persons are required to complete
returns under this proposal.
25
Section 297(1)(h) prescribes the power to make regulations outlining the form in
which these returns are to be kept and provided, including timing of completion.
26
Consequently, the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 specify the timing,
among other details, in which these returns are to be completed. For the returns in
question, the time of completion of catch and effort information is not explicit. It is in
this context, that the Minister is asked to make a decision to clarify such obligation in
the regulations.
10
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - CORRECTION OF
COORDINATES AND DESCRIPTION ERRORS IN
CHALLENGER AREA REGULATIONS
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) has identified a number of errors in the area
descriptions used in fisheries regulations. MFish proposes to address these historical
inaccuracies by amending such incorrect descriptions. The Challenger Fisheries
Management Area is being proposed as the initial area to undergo such a review. This
step will be undertaken in conjunction with earlier changes to regulatory drafting
procedures that were aimed at insuring that future area descriptions were fully
accurate.
2
In total, 27 errors were identified in the Fisheries (Challenger Area Amateur Fishing)
Regulations 1986 and the Fisheries (Challenger Area Commercial Fishing)
Regulations 1986. The vast majority of these errors were relatively minor but the two
involving the Dieffenbach Point and the Farewell Spit Light were deemed significant
enough to merit the full consultative process – hence their inclusion in this Initial
Position Paper (IPP). The other errors will also be put forward to the Minister for
correction in unison with the two being proposed in this paper. Both minor and major
changes made to these regulations will be communicated to fishers to ensure that the
best and most recent information is readily available.
3
The affected closures and restrictions were previously approved by Cabinet to achieve
a desired objective, which has now been compromised by incomplete or inaccurate
area descriptions. The current level of uncertainty has resulted in less than optimal
management of these areas. The problem is also a threat to the credibility of the
fisheries management regime, needlessly hindering the Ministry’s strategy of
maximising voluntary compliance.
4
Two options are being proposed for consideration by the Minister; to retain the status
quo or amend the errors identified. Of those two options, only the latter addresses any
of the concerns described earlier in a meaningful way.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
5
This IPP has been deemed not significant and has been reviewed by MFish.
Therefore, a Regulatory Impact Statement was not necessary.
6
For more information on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements and the
meaning of the word ‘significant’ with reference to an Initial Position Paper, please
refer to the Ministry of Economic Development website www.med.govt.nz.
11
The Issue
7
Coordinates used in many area definitions are incorrect, which is undermining the
purpose of the closures as approved by Cabinet. The errors have also affected the
Ministry of Fisheries’ ability to enforce these regulations effectively.
8
The Fisheries (Challenger Area Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986 and the
Fisheries (Challenger Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986 contain a total of 27
of these errors. The 27 errors identified vary greatly in size with only two errors
deemed significant enough to warrant consultation. The remaining errors have been
judged minor and technical in nature and will consequently be amended at the same
time. Any changes, whether significant or minor, will be publicised to keep fishers
informed and up to date.
9
Correcting these errors will ensure that the individual goals of each affected closure
are achieved and the credibility of the overall fisheries management regime is
restored. The affected closures were approved by Cabinet and put in place to address
issues relating to sustainability and allocation. The current situation does not allow
MFish to properly manage these closures to their intended purpose. The
inconsistencies present in area definitions also create uncertainty and difficulties for
prosecutions that involve these areas.
10
There are a number of risks involved in allowing the existing situation to remain;
primarily those involving deliberate exploitation of a weakness in the regulations.
Some of the closures described by the coordinates in question were put in place to
protect ecologically sensitive areas that require the full protection of the regulations.
Any encroachment has the potential to seriously affect these vulnerable areas.
11
Many changes have been made to the Ministry’s operational practices to avoid further
errors in future regulations and MFish is now seeking the Minister’s approval to
correct existing faults on an area by area basis. The discussion in this proposal is
limited to the two major errors.
Summary of Options
12
The following two options are proposed at this time:
Option 1 – Status Quo
13
Retain the incorrect area descriptions and coordinates as they currently appear in the
regulations.
Option 2 – Corrective Action [MFish Preferred Option]
14
Correct the two area descriptions that follow:
Dieffenbach Point
15
Regulation 4A of the Fisheries (Challenger Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986
(the Amateur Regulations), which deals with set net restrictions, provides incorrect
12
coordinates for one of the points used to describe the Inner Queen Charlotte Sound
area.
16
The latitude given is one degree off and has placed the point more than one hundred
kilometres from its actual location. The incorrect coordinates (40 degrees 14.0'S and
174 degrees 08.70'E) should read 41° 14.0'S and 174° 08.70’E. The revised definition
follows:
[4A
Set net prohibition
(1)
Except as provided for in subclause (2) of this regulation, no person shall use or
possess a set net having a mesh size of or greater than 100 mm in the following waters:
(a)
Inner Queen Charlotte Sound: The waters inside a line running from
Dieffenbach Point (41 degrees 14.0'S and 174 degrees 08.70'E) to West Head Point
(41 degrees 13.0'S and 174 degrees 08.60'E):
13
Farewell Spit Light
17
The Interpretation section (2A) of the Amateur Regulations uses incorrect coordinates
to define the location of the Farewell Spit Light in its description of the Challenger
(East) Area. This definition is, in turn, applied throughout the Amateur Regulations
to assign differentiated bag and size limits to recreational fishers in the area.
18
There is a two degree error in the latitude coordinates given for the Farewell Spit
Light (given as approximately 42° 32.9'S and approximately 173° 00.6’E) that has
placed it hundreds of kilometres away from its actual location.
14
19
The revised definition should read:
[[Challenger (East) Area
(a)
means all that area of New Zealand fisheries waters enclosed by a line
commencing at Farewell Spit Light (approximately 40° 32.7'S and approximately
173° 00.5'E); then proceeding north along this line of longitude to a point on the
boundary of Fisheries Management Area 7 (approximately 39° 38'S and
approximately 173° 00.6'E); then proceeding in a generally south-easterly direction
directly to a point 40° 32.0'S and 174° 20.0'E; then proceeding in a generally
southerly direction to the Brothers Island light (approximately 41° 06.2'S and
approximately 174° 26.5'E); then proceeding in a generally southerly direction
directly to a point 42° 10.0'S and 174° 42.0'E; then proceeding west along the 42°
10.0'S line of latitude to the mean high-water mark of the South Island near
Clarence Point (approximately longitude 173° 56.5'E); then proceeding along the
mean high-water mark of the South Island in generally northerly, westerly, and
south-westerly directions to the point of commencement; but
(b)
20
does not include the Marlborough Sounds Area.]]
This would place the Farewell Spit Light at the point shown below and would
coincide with the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) definition given in the New
Zealand List of Lights 4.
Rationale for Management Options
21
4
MFish has made a concerted effort to identify all coordinate or area description errors
that currently exist within the Amateur and Commercial Regulations. This was done
in conjunction with measures aimed at improving the quality of the process to define
http://www.hydro.linz.govt.nz/lights/index.asp
15
future regulated areas. This IPP provides an opportunity for the Minister to address
the significant errors found within the Challenger Area Amateur Regulations.
22
The Challenger Area Regulations will be amended with the updated area descriptions
in October 2008 if the significant errors identified in this paper are approved for
correction. The minor and technical errors not covered within this proposal will be
corrected along the same timeline with the updated definitions in place for October
2008.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1: Status Quo
Impact
23
Retaining the status quo does not address the issues of credibility and maximising
voluntary compliance that MFish seeks to achieve. It will continue to create
uncertainty and the ability to exploit weaknesses around the true location of regulated
closures and restrictions. Most importantly, it will continue to undermine the intent of
previously approved Cabinet closures and restrictions.
24
The ambiguities will continue to create needless hurdles to compliance for users of the
relevant areas and the compliance arm of the Ministry responsible for enforcing these
restrictions.
Costs
25
There is a risk of breaches against the affected regulations if they are perceived as
unenforceable. These risks could increase over time if this perception is allowed to
grow and eventually extend to other fisheries regulations. Any reduction in voluntary
compliance will result in greater effort and enforcement costs in order to achieve an
optimal level of compliance.
Benefits
26
There are no benefits associated with maintaining the status quo.
Option 2: Corrective Action
Impact
27
Addressing these errors will redress a longstanding deficiency in these regional
regulations and complement the congruent work conducted by MFish to improve all
area descriptions. The impact to fishers is expected to be relatively low since this
proposal does introduce new restrictions and only aims to clarify existing ones.
Costs
28
There are no direct costs to industry from these proposed changes. Fishers will need
to be informed of the new area descriptions once these changes have been approved.
16
It is expected that these changes will warrant a low to moderate level of resources
from MFish but can be covered within existing processes.
Benefits
29
Properly labelling these incorrect areas will increase their management effectiveness
and better reflect the original goals behind the restrictions and closures involved.
Improved area descriptions will also assist fishers in complying with existing fisheries
regulations – increasing voluntary compliance. Accurate area descriptions that are
compatible with current navigational technology, such as GPS, will also serve to
improve the credibility of our fisheries management regime.
30
Correcting all commercial and amateur area descriptions within the Challenger area
simultaneously is more efficient for MFish than the traditional approach of addressing
individual errors on an ad hoc basis.
Other Management Controls
31
There are no other management controls to consider since this proposal only involves
the correction of existing regulations.
Statutory Considerations
32
In considering the proposed amendments, the Minister is required to follow relevant
statutory criteria contained in the Act. These criteria are set out below.
33
Section 5 (a) and (b): There is a wide range of international obligations relating to
fishing (including sustainability and utilisation of fish stocks and maintaining
biodiversity). MFish considers that any of the recommendations are consistent with
issues arising under international obligations and the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
34
Section 8: The purpose of the Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability. Part of ensuring sustainability involves
avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic life.
The closed/restricted areas described in this paper were put in place to control the
impacts of fishing on vulnerable areas. The recommended changes are put forward to
ensure that compliance with these restrictions is achieved.
35
Section 9(c): The recommended changes will afford greater protection to the habitats
of particular significance identified within these closed/restricted areas by providing
added certainty and well-defined boundaries.
36
Section 10: MFish considers that the recommendations made are based on the best
available information and that the changes would better reflect current mapping
technology.
37
Section 297(1)(a)(ii): The Governor-General may from time to time, by Order in
Council, make regulations regulating, authorising, or prohibiting the taking or
possession of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed from any area.
17
INITIAL POSITION PAPER- PROPOSAL TO LIST
PRAWN KILLER (PRK) ON THE SIXTH SCHEDULE OF
THE FISHERIES ACT 1996
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) received a request from the fishing industry to list
prawn killer Ibacus alticrenatus (PRK) on the Sixth Schedule of the Fisheries Act
1996 (the Act) to enable their return to the water following capture.
2
Section 72 of the Act prohibits quota management system (QMS) species being
returned to the water following capture unless the stock is listed in the Sixth Schedule
and the commercial fisher complies with the requirements set out in that Schedule.
Industry has requested that prawn killer stocks be included on the Sixth Schedule to
provide additional operational flexibility so that they can choose whether to land
prawn killer and balance catches with annual catch entitlement (ACE), or return
prawn killer likely to survive to the water.
3
In response to this request MFish proposes two options for consideration. Option 1 is
to retain the status quo where commercial fishers are required to land and report all
prawn killer caught. Option 2 is to list prawn killer on the Sixth Schedule of the
Fisheries Act 1996 to enable commercial fishers to return prawn killer to the water if
they are likely to survive and are reported.
4
Limited information is available regarding the status of prawn killer stocks or on their
survivability when returned to the sea. Prawn killer were introduced into the QMS in
October 2007. While there have been expressions of interest for a target fishery in
previous years it has yet to be developed to its full extent. Currently there is a limited
market for prawn killer and catch reports suggest that past and recent catches were
taken mostly as bycatch of targeted scampi trawling.
5
Through this consultation process, MFish requests more information regarding the
survivability of prawn killer to assess whether they should be added to the Sixth
Schedule. Stakeholders are also invited to provide information on the likely benefits
that the proposed increase in operational flexibility may provide to the industry, and
any other information or views in relation to either management option.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
6
A Regulatory Impact statement was required for this Initial Position Paper and it has
been reviewed internally by the Ministry of Fisheries.
7
For more information on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements with reference
to an Initial Position Paper, please refer to the Ministry of Economic Development
website www.med.govt.nz.
18
The Issue
8
Prawn killer entered the QMS on 1 October 2007, with catch limits set for all stocks
to constrain use to previously recorded levels of catch. One rationale for introducing
prawn killer into the QMS was the improved information that could be obtained
through the requirement for commercial fishers to land and report catch. This is
particularly important in the case of prawn killer as there is currently no information
on the abundance, yield, or stock status for any prawn killer stock.
9
The issue of whether prawn killer may be suitable for inclusion on the Sixth Schedule
of the Act was raised during consultation leading to the decision to introduce prawn
killer stocks into the QMS. The possibility of considering the listing of prawn killer
stocks on the Sixth Schedule was acknowledged by MFish as an issue for the future.
10
Industry has recently raised this issue again and requests that prawn killer be added to
the stocks listed on the Sixth Schedule to enable commercial fishers to choose
whether to land prawn killer, which they advise is currently of limited commercial
value, or to return it to the water if it is likely to survive.
11
As prawn killer has only just entered the QMS and limited information on prawn
killer and its survivability is available, MFish requires more information in order to
consider changing management controls from the status quo. MFish invites
stakeholders to submit information related to the following management options.
Summary of Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
12
Commercial fishers are not permitted to return prawn killer to the water. Fishers must
land and report all prawn killer taken, and balance the catch with ACE or pay the
deemed value. The deemed value is currently set at $0.20 per kilogram.
13
MFish noted in the QMS consultation process of 2007 that it considered Sixth
Schedule listing as something that could be considered in the future for prawn killer
and currently maintains this position. However, MFish supports the status quo at this
time as prawn killer was only recently introduced to the QMS, information on prawn
killer stocks and their survivability is currently limited, and a target fishery for prawn
killer has yet to be developed.
Option 2 – Inclusion of Prawn Killer on the Sixth Schedule
14
List prawn killer on the Sixth Schedule of the Act to enable commercial fishers to
legally return prawn killer to the water if they are likely to survive and are reported.
Rationale for Management Options
15
Section 72 of the Act prohibits QMS species being returned to the water following
capture unless the stock is listed in the Sixth Schedule and the commercial fisher
complies with the requirements set out in that Schedule. The requirement to land and
19
report catch promotes the effective utilisation of fisheries resources to ensure that
wastage of aquatic life taken through fishing is minimised.
16
Schedule Six of the Act allows commercial fishers to return particular stocks to the
water in some circumstances. Aquatic life from most stocks listed on the Sixth
Schedule may be returned to the water only if they are likely to survive 5.
17
The Sixth Schedule often provides commercial fishers the opportunity to maximise
the efficiency of their operations or the value of their catch by returning some aquatic
life to the water, provided that only live aquatic life likely to survive are returned and
aquatic life that are dead or unlikely to survive are landed and reported.
18
Prawn killer has historically been taken as bycatch in the scampi fishery, but interest
to develop a target fishery has previously been expressed to MFish. A modest market
exists for the same species and for similar species in Australia. The potential growth
of a target fishery was considered in the recent decision to introduce prawn killer to
the QMS.
19
There are no stock assessments for any prawn killer stock and no estimates of
biomass, stock status or sustainable yield. Catch limits have been set on the basis of
previously reported commercial landings. Little information on the species is
available but prawn killer are reported to occur around the North and South Islands of
New Zealand in relatively deep water from depths of about 80 to 300 metres. There is
little information on the survivability of prawn killer once taken from these depths,
which is of particular importance to this proposal. However, many other crustaceans
have appeared to withstand the effects of being brought to the surface and then
returned to the sea provided the release is soon after removal and the exposure to
excessive sunlight is avoided.
20
Stakeholders are invited to present information regarding the likely survival rate of
prawn killer or, if such information is not available, submit robust proposals to collect
relevant data for survival rate estimation.
21
Industry has requested the addition of prawn killer stocks to the Sixth Schedule to
give commercial fishers the flexibility of being able to return prawn killer likely to
survive to the water. Stakeholders are also invited to submit information on the costs
to industry of maintaining the requirement that all commercial catch of prawn killer
stocks be landed and reported.
Assessment of Management Options
20
MFish presents the following options for consideration. MFish reminds submitters
that this Initial Position Paper is not final advice for the Minister but gives
stakeholders the opportunity to comment and provide supplementary information
relevant to the discussion presented here.
5
Of the 21 stocks listed on the Sixth Schedule all except spiny dogfish may only be returned to the water if
likely to survive.
20
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
21
Option 1 proposes to maintain the status quo, requiring commercial fishers to land and
report all prawn killer taken and balance the catch with ACE or pay the deemed value.
Previously reported commercial landings of prawn killer were considered in setting
the initial catch limits when prawn killer entered the QMS on 1 October 2007.
22
As prawn killer have not been managed in the QMS for a full fishing year, no
assessment can be made of current catches against the TACC. Given the rationale in
setting the catch limits, landings are expected to fall within these limits as a target
fishery has yet to be developed.
23
No information has been received to indicate that prawn killer that has been landed as
bycatch from scampi trawl fisheries is likely to exceed the TACC. It is therefore
unlikely that the status quo will constrain the harvest of prawn killer stocks at this
time, however stock sustainability issues will need to be reconsidered should there be
future growth in exploratory fishing and the development of a target fishery.
Costs
23
Given the recent introduction of prawn killer into the QMS there is limited
information available on the costs that the requirement to land and report all prawn
killer has placed on industry. It is therefore not possible to assess the costs incurred by
industry in maintaining the status quo without further information. Stakeholders are
invited to provide information related to these costs.
24
As there is currently a limited market for prawn killer, the status quo may create an
incentive for commercial fishers to unlawfully dump prawn killer to avoid the
requirement of balancing the catch with ACE or paying the deemed value.
Benefits
25
The requirement to land and report all QMS stocks encourages industry to develop a
market for prawn killer as well as improving information and understanding of the
fishery. This is consistent with a broader objective of reducing the volume of wastage
that is generated by trawl fishing methods.
26
Maintaining the status quo will provide additional time to collect information in
relation to uncertainties surrounding the status of prawn killer and its survivability, to
assist management decisions.
Option 2 –Inclusion of Prawn Killer on the Sixth Schedule
Impact
27
Option 2 proposes to amend the Sixth Schedule to allow commercial fishers to legally
return prawn killer to the water if the prawn killer are likely to survive after release.
Option 2 results in an unknown level of risk to the sustainability of prawn killer
stocks.
21
28
Option 2 is problematic for compliance as MFish currently has no information to
assess under what conditions, if any, prawn killer are likely to survive when returned
to the water.
29
The likely to survive condition placed on the majority of fisheries included in the
Sixth Schedule is difficult to enforce and it is possible that commercial fishers would
choose to discard prawn killer, given the economic incentive, regardless of its
likelihood of survival.
30
Further to this, Option 2 assumes commercial fishers can identify prawn killer that are
likely to survive upon return to the water. MFish has no information to support the
assertion that commercial fishers can effectively judge the likelihood of prawn killer
survival and more information is requested from stakeholders on this issue in order to
assess the risks to the fishery.
Costs
29
Option 2 may reduce the incentive for unlawful discard since Sixth Schedule inclusion
would allow return to the water if prawn killer are likely to survive. However, there is
still potentially an incentive and opportunity for commercial fishers to dump prawn
killer if they are dead or unlikely to survive, such as those that are damaged and may
be less marketable.
30
Listing aquatic life caught commonly as bycatch on the Sixth Schedule may reduce
the incentive for commercial fishers to reduce and avoid bycatch and is inconsistent
with the objective of sustainable utilisation of fishery resources.
Benefits
31
The addition of prawn killer to the Sixth Schedule may offer industry more flexibility
and may enable more efficient vessel operations and utilisation of ACE.
32
MFish is unable to quantify the benefits to commercial fishers from adding prawn
killer to the Sixth Schedule as prawn killer has only recently been introduced to the
QMS and the costs for obtaining ACE to account for bycatch have yet to be
determined. It is also unknown what proportion of catch would be likely to survive if
returned and the cost and benefits that this could create for industry.
Statutory Considerations
33
The information principles of the Act 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.
34
Limited information is available on prawn killer and its survivability and this was
considered in the management options presented. MFish invites stakeholders to
provide additional information on the survivability of prawn killer or propose methods
for collecting data to assist with the estimation of survival rates. A full assessment of
the statutory considerations are provided in Appendix One.
22
APPENDIX ONE
Statutory Considerations
35
Section 5 (a): Decision-makers are required to act in a manner consistent with New
Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing including the Law of the Sea
and the Fish Stocks agreement as well as regional fishery management agreements.
36
MFish considers that both options are consistent with New Zealand’s international
obligations relating to fishing.
37
Section 5 (b): Decision-makers must also act in a manner consistent with the
provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
38
MFish considers that both options are consistent with the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
39
Section 8: The status quo described as Option 1 in this paper was set in October 2007
with the objective of providing for utilisation of prawn killer fisheries while ensuring
sustainability. The risks to sustainability under Option 2 are uncertain given the
limited amount of information on the stock status and survivability of prawn killer.
40
Section 9 (a) and (b): It is unlikely that either of the management options proposed
would materially affect associated or dependent species or the biological diversity of
the aquatic environment.
41
Section 9 (c): It is unlikely that either of the management options proposed would
affect relevant habitats of particular significance to fisheries management. Prawn
killer are currently caught by trawl fishing and the methods and level of harvest will
not change as a result of either option.
42
Section 10: Decision-makers are required to take account of the information
principles which direct that decisions are based on the best available information, that
any uncertainty in the information be considered and that caution is taken when
information is uncertain or unreliable. The information principles also prescribe that
an absence or lack of information should not be used as a reason for postponing or
failing to take any measure to achieve the purpose of the Act.
43
There is little information available to support whether change from the status quo is
required to achieve the purpose of the Act. There is also limited information on prawn
killer and its survivability, as discussed. Stakeholders are invited to provide further
information to better inform decision on whether to list prawn killer stocks in the
Sixth Schedule of the Act.
44
Section 11 (1) (a) and (b): The effects of fishing on prawn killer were considered.
The status quo, in which all prawn killer must be landed and balanced with ACE, has
prompted industry to request that prawn killer be listed on the Sixth Schedule of the
Act.
23
45
Section 11 (1) (c) : The effect of natural variability of prawn killer stocks on either
management option is unknown.
46
Section 11 (2) (a) and (b): There are no provisions applicable to the coastal marine
area known to exist in any policy statement or plan under the Resource Management
Act 1991, or any management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1987 that
are relevant to the management options proposed.
24
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
Proposal to list prawn killer on the Sixth Schedule of the Fisheries Act 1996.
Executive summary
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) received a request from the commercial fishing industry to
add prawn killer to the Sixth Schedule of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act) to allow the return
of prawn killer to the water following capture provided they are likely to survive. Prawn
killer only entered the quota management system (QMS) in October 2007 and there is limited
information on their stock status and their survivability when returned to the water.
MFish currently supports retaining the status quo where all prawn killer must be landed and
reported. However, MFish requests more information from stakeholders on prawn killer
survivability, the likely benefits that the proposed increase in operational flexibility may
provide to the industry and any other views in relation to either management option to
determine whether adding prawn killer to the Sixth Schedule is appropriate.
Adequacy statement
This Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by the Ministry of Fisheries’
Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Committee and is considered adequate according to the
criteria agreed by Cabinet.
Status quo and problem
Under the status quo commercial fishers are not allowed to return prawn killer to the water
and must land and report all prawn killer taken and balance the catch with ACE or pay the
deemed value. The deemed value is currently set at $0.20 per kilogram.
Prawn killer entered the QMS on 1 October 2007, with catch limits set for all stocks to
constrain use to previously recorded levels of catch.
Currently there is very little information on the abundance, yield, or stock status for any
prawn killer stock.
One rationale for introducing prawn killer into the QMS was the improved information that
could be obtained through the requirement for commercial fishers to land and report catch
Industry requests that prawn killer be added to the stocks listed in the Sixth Schedule to
enable commercial fishers to choose whether to return prawn killer, which they advise is
currently of limited commercial value, to the water if it is likely to survive.
As prawn killer has only just entered the QMS and limited information on prawn killer and its
survivability is available, listing prawn killer on the Sixth Schedule would result in an
unknown level of risk to its sustainability. However, many other crustaceans have appeared
to withstand the effects of being brought to the surface and then returned to the sea provided
the release is soon after removal and the exposure to excessive sunlight is avoided.
Objectives
The National Fisheries Outcome is “the value New Zealanders obtain through the sustainable
use of fisheries resources and protection of the aquatic environment is maximised”.
25
Alternative options
Option 2 proposes to list prawn killer on the Sixth Schedule to enable commercial fishers to
legally return prawn killer to the water if they are likely to survive after release. This may
offer industry more flexibility and may enable more efficient vessel operations and utilisation
of ACE.
However, prawn killer has only just entered the QMS and little is known about actual catch
levels, the stock dynamics, and survivability of individuals if returned to the water. This
poses issues for sustainability. Further, adding prawn killer to the Sixth Schedule is
problematic for compliance as MFish currently has no information to assess under what
conditions, if any, prawn killer are likely to survive when returned to the water.
Preferred option
The preferred option is to maintain the status quo with the possibility of re-considering the
proposal to list prawn killer on the Sixth Schedule when more information has been obtained.
The QMS requirement to land and report all stocks encourages industry to develop a market
to utilise prawn killer and to develop strategies to reduce incidental bycatch. The requirement
also improves information and understanding of the fishery. This is consistent with a broader
objective of reducing the volume of incidental bycatch that is generated by trawl fishing
methods.
From a management perspective, maintaining the status quo is also reasonable given the
uncertainty over survivability of prawn killer if returned to the water and the lack of
information regarding sustainability of stocks.
Implementation and review
It is proposed to retain the status quo and require commercial fishers to land and report all
prawn killer catches until such time as sufficient information is available to make an
informed decision.
Consultation
MFish will carry out a consultation process in accordance with section 12 of the Act.
That section requires the Minister to consult the persons and organisations considered by the
Minister to be 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 Maori,
recreational, commercial and environmental interests.
Once feedback from the above consultation has been reviewed and final advice drafted and
considered by the Minister of Fisheries, MFish will also seek feedback from relevant
government departments.
26
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - LOCALISED DEPLETION
OF BLUE COD IN THE MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS
Executive Summary
1
This Initial Position Paper (IPP) proposes a range of new management measures to
continue to address the localised depletion of blue cod (Parapercis colias) populations
in the Marlborough Sounds. The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) contends that
additional measures are necessary to give greater certainty for populations to rebuild
in depleted areas and safeguard the currently productive outer areas from high fishing
pressure.
2
Recent information on blue cod abundance shows a continued decline of blue cod
abundance throughout the Marlborough Sounds. All areas recorded the lowest
numbers of juveniles from a time-series of surveys since 1995. There was an average
decline of 57% of juveniles from the 2004 survey - with the inner Queen Charlotte
Sound reporting no blue cod (both adults and juveniles). Only the very outer areas of
the Marlborough Sounds recorded a reasonable number of adult blue cod.
3
The serial depletion of blue cod is consistent with a high level of recreational fishing
pressure in the Marlborough Sounds. This is the overriding and immediate factor
affecting localised blue cod abundance.
4
MFish proposes a suite of new measures for the recreational blue cod fishery to
reduce both harvest levels and incidental fishing mortality to allow populations to
rebuild. The proposed measures include the following:
•
Temporary closure of parts of the Queen Charlotte Sound and/or Pelorus Sound to
all finfishing with hook and line.
•
The daily bag limit is reduced from three to two blue cod per person and a limit of
six blue cod per boat is introduced.
•
Possession of only one day’s bag limit on multi-day trips.
•
Blue cod must be landed whole or gutted.
•
Fishers to retain all blue cod at or above MLS.
5
MFish also proposes to strengthen the existing voluntary agreement to prevent
commercial fishers from targeting blue cod within large areas of the Queen Charlotte
Sound and Pelorus Sound.
6
This paper also considers proposals by the Marlborough Sounds multi-sector group
SoundFish to require boat fishers to use one hook per line and large hooks (6/0 or
greater) and amend the Marlborough Sounds Area boundary.
7
The proposed area closures have greatest impact on the recreational sector by
requiring fishers to travel further to open areas (ie, outer areas of the Marlborough
Sounds). The proposed daily bag limit adjustments have less impact, as many fishers
have already experienced a reduction in catch levels through the depletion of local
blue cod populations. MFish is uncertain to what degree the proposed boat limit
27
assists with the reduction in recreational catch but welcomes the communities’
comments on the proposals desirability.
8
When deciding on management options it is important to consider that previous
initiatives since 1993 have not been successful to reduce recreational harvest levels of
blue cod through amateur daily bag limit reductions and minimum legal size
adjustments. Blue cod continues to be the most popular target finfish species for
recreational fishers in the Marlborough Sounds and fishing pressure remains high. The
current daily bag limit of three blue cod per person leaves little scope for further catch
reduction without the need for temporary area closures. MFish believes these factors
indicate that stronger measures are necessary to rebuild localised blue cod populations
and to enable the Marlborough Sounds to return to a sustainable blue cod fishery in
the near future.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
9
This IPP has been deemed significant and has been reviewed by the Ministry of
Economic Development’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Unit.
10
For more information on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements and the
meaning of the word ‘significant’ with reference to an IPP, please refer to the
Ministry of Economic Development website www.med.govt.nz.
The Issue
11
Blue cod is the most important recreational target finfish species in the
Marlborough Sounds (for resident and visitor fishers alike). Approximately 83% of
the total estimated recreational catch from the Challenger Blue Cod (BCO 7) Fishery
is taken from the Marlborough Sounds.
12
Recreational fishing pressure within the Marlborough Sounds has increased steadily
over the past decade, with a marked increase in the use of trailer and berthed boat
numbers. The expansion of recreational boat usage has also included an increase in
average vessel size and fishing frequency, coupled with the wider use of technology
such as GPS receivers and fish finders. These factors mean that fishers are more
mobile in the areas fished within the Marlborough Sounds, and more and more fishers
are now utilising the more exposed and productive areas of the outer areas to catch
blue cod. In addition, there has been an increase in the number of local charter boats
that are readily able to fish in all areas of the Sounds, particularly the outer areas.
13
In 2003, the Minister of Fisheries implemented measures to address concerns on the
sustainability of blue cod populations within the Marlborough Sounds. These
measures focused on the recreational sector and included decreasing the amateur
daily bag limit from six to three blue cod per person and setting the minimum legal
size limit (MLS) to 30 cm total fish length (previously a 27 cm and 33 cm MLS
applied for the Marlborough Sounds Area 6 and wider BCO 7 fishery, respectively).
6
Marlborough Sounds Area as currently defined under the Fisheries Regulations 1986, Challenger Area
Amateur Fishing Regulation 2A. This defines the ‘Marlborough Sounds Area’ as being the waters enclosed by a
line from the northern tip of Stephens Island to Cape Jackson then to Cape Koamaru, then from West Head to
28
The intent of these measures was to reduce the recreational harvest level of blue cod
in the Marlborough Sounds and to enable the rebuild of localised blue cod
populations.
14
Recent information on blue cod abundance indicates that the 2003 management
measures have not been successful in increasing blue cod numbers in the
Marlborough Sounds (as at September 2007). This information indicates that the
relative abundance of recruited 7 and pre-recruited 8 blue cod has continued to remain
at low levels or declined further. This suggests that many areas have low numbers of
blue cod.
15
The failure of blue cod abundance to increase suggests that recreational fishers are
continuing to exert intense fishing pressure within most areas of the Marlborough
Sounds. Areas of particular concern continue to include the inner and mid-areas of
the Sounds, however, blue cod numbers within some outer areas are now also
declining possibly in response to a transfer of fishing effort into these areas.
16
The continued decline of blue cod abundance in the Marlborough Sounds, in spite of
previous measures, indicates that current recreational fishing pressure is still too high
to allow a rebuild of localised populations. Concentrated recreational fishing effort
has resulted in too many recruited fish being caught from the inner and middle areas
of Queen Charlotte Sound and Pelorus Sound. It is also most likely that the
accumulated mortality of returned fish from the recreational fishery has contributed to
the decline of pre-recruited and juvenile blue cod across most areas of the
Marlborough Sounds.
17
MFish contends that additional management measures are necessary to give greater
certainty for localised blue cod populations to rebuild in depleted areas and safeguard
the currently productive outer areas from increased fishing pressure. To achieve these
outcomes, MFish proposes the following fishery management objectives for the
Marlborough Sounds blue cod fishery:
•
Lowering recreational exploitation rates in depleted areas to a level that enables
the rebuild of localised populations.
•
Ensure the fishery in the outer Marlborough Sounds is sustainably fished and is
not serially depleted through displacement of fishing effort from the inner and mid
areas.
•
Ensure the proposed measures are practicable both for fishers and fisheries
compliance.
•
Ensure the proposed fisheries measures have sufficient community buy-in to be
effective.
East Head of Tory Channel across French Pass and Stephens Passage and back to the point of commencement.
2
Recruited blue cod means fish ≥ 30 cm in total length.
8
Pre-recruited blue cod means fish <30 cm in total length.
29
Fishery Assessment
18
The Marlborough Sounds blue cod fishery is subject to an ongoing time-series of
surveys to assess the relative abundance and size distribution of blue cod populations.
The initial survey commenced in 1995, and subsequent surveys were undertaken in
1996, 2001, 2004, and 2007.
19
The most recent information from the 2007 survey indicates the continued decline in
both recruited and pre-recruited blue cod (refer Tables 1, 2 & 3). Main findings are as
follows.
Recruited blue cod (≥30 cm)
20
Table 1 shows the Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for recruited blue cod from
1995 to 2007.
Table 1. CPUE data (kg/hr) recruited blue cod (≥ 30 cm) Marlborough Sounds 1995 to 2007
Survey area
Queen
Charlotte
Sound
Inner
Outer
Extreme outer
Pelorus
Sound
Inner
Mid
outer
Extreme outer
D’Urville East
D’Urville West
%
change
on
previous
average
%
change
on 2004
1995
1996
2001
2004
2007*
Average
1995 –
2004
0.544
1.164
2.522
NS
NS
NS
0.298
0.554
0.898
0.212
0.327
1.079
0.000
0.189
1.906
0.351
0.682
1.500
-100
-72
27
-100
-42
77
NS
NS
1.617
2.325
NS
NS
0.563
1.421
1.951
2.079
7.934
NS
0.070
0.192
0.312
0.806
3.334
NS
0.090
0.221
0.474
1.841
2.833
2.798
0.106
0.214
0.459
2.418
2.688
4.842
0.241
0.611
1.088
1.763
4.700
2.798
-56
-65
-58
37
-43
73
19
-3
-3
31
-5
73
Note: * preliminary data, NS not surveyed
21
The data recorded shows the lowest values since 1995 for recruited blue cod in the
inner and outer Queen Charlotte Sound and east D’Urville Island areas. No recruited
fish were recorded in the inner Queen Charlotte Sound. The remaining inner and
middle areas of the Marlborough Sounds reported very low catch rates compared to
1995 and 1996 with no indication of recovery from the decline first identified in 2001.
The extreme outer Queen Charlotte Sound and extreme outer Pelorus Sound, and west
D’Urville Island reported an increase in the catch rate for recruited blue cod from the
previous survey.
Pre-recruited blue cod (<30cm)
22
Table 2 shows the CPUE data for pre-recruited blue cod from 1995 to 2007.
30
Table 2. CPUE data (kg/hr) pre-recruited blue cod (< 30 cm) Marlborough Sounds 1995 to 2007
Survey area
Queen
Charlotte
Sound
Inner
Outer
Extreme outer
Pelorus
Sound
Inner
Mid
outer
Extreme outer
D’Urville East
D’Urville West
%
change
on
previous
average
%
change
on 2004
1995
1996
2001
2004
2007*
Average
1995 –
2004
0.178
0.853
0.603
NS
NS
NS
0.249
0.763
0.723
0.158
0.610
0.961
0.000
0.431
0.665
0.195
0.742
0.762
-100
-42
-13
-100
-29
-31
NS
NS
1.325
1.186
NS
NS
0.401
1.325
1.168
0.723
1.976
NS
0.124
0.333
0.293
0.640
2.791
NS
0.226
0.257
0.645
1.193
1.845
1.232
0.169
0.176
0.340
0.774
0.670
0.891
0.250
0.638
0.858
0.936
2.204
1.232
-33
-72
-60
-17
-70
-28
-25
-31
-47
-35
-64
-28
Note: * preliminary data, NS not surveyed
23
The relative abundance of pre-recruited fish (this includes juveniles 17-27 cm) has
continued to decline in the inner sounds areas. These areas had a lower catch rate than
1996 and 2004. The steepest declines were reported in the inner and outer Queen
Charlotte Sound, middle and outer Pelorus Sound, and east D’Urville Island. The
inner Queen Charlotte Sound area is of particular concern where no pre-recruited (<30
cm) or recruited (≥ 30 cm) blue cod were caught in 2007. East D’Urville Island area
has also shown a marked decline in 2007 - down 70% of the catch rates for the
average of the three previous surveys.
24
The extreme outer Queen Charlotte and extreme outer Pelorus appear to be within the
natural variation of the survey sequence. West D’Urville Island has only been
surveyed twice so it is not possible to establish any trend, although catch rates were
relatively high in 2007.
Juvenile blue cod (17-27cm)
25
Table 3 shows the CPUE data for pre-recruited blue cod from 1995 to 2007.
31
Table 3. CPUE data (kg/hr) juvenile blue cod (17-27 cm) Marlborough Sounds 1995 to 2007
%
Change
on
previous
average
%
Change
on 2004
1995
1996
2001
2004
2007*
Average
1995 –
2004
0.070
0.370
0.290
NS
NS
NS
0.130
0.510
0.480
0.140
0.420
0.580
0.000
0.306
0.217
0.113
0.433
0.450
-100
-29
-52
-100
-27
-63
NS
NS
0.700
0.480
NS
NS
0.260
0.610
0.580
0.270
0.660
NS
0.100
0.240
0.190
0.460
1.580
NS
0.180
0.150
0.430
0.620
0.860
0.570
0.098
0.106
0.171
0.249
0.249
0.268
0.180
0.333
0.475
0.458
1.033
0.570
-46
-68
-64
-46
-76
-53
-46
-29
-60
-60
-71
-53
Queen
Charlotte
Sound
Inner
Outer
Extreme outer
Pelorus
Sound
Inner
Mid
outer
Extreme outer
D’Urville East
D’Urville West
Note: * preliminary data, NS not surveyed
26
The data for juvenile blue cod also reflects the decline shown in the pre-recruits.
The exception in 2007 is that all survey areas recorded the lowest catch rate for the
survey series.
Recreational Fishery
27
Measures were taken in 2003 to assist the recovery of blue cod populations in the
Marlborough Sounds (measures also applied to Golden and Tasman Bays). These
measures included reducing the amateur daily bag limit from six to three blue cod per
person and adjusting the MLS to 30 cm.
28
Data from fisher diary surveys suggest an increase in the average number of fishing
trips per diarist from 12 to 18 trips per year since 2001-02. In 2005-06 blue cod were
also the most frequent fish taken representing 35% of the total catch recorded by
diarists (from 43 species). Snapper was the second most popular fish taken with 10%
of the total recorded catch.
29
The most recent estimates of recreational harvest in the Marlborough Sounds are
based on a dedicated boat ramp interview and aerial over-flight survey in 2005-06.
This survey estimates the annual harvest of blue cod in the Marlborough Sounds to be
about 149 tonnes.
Commercial fishery
30
Within the BCO 7 commercial fishery, blue cod is exclusively caught by the inshore
fishing fleet. The current TACC is set at 70 tonnes and has not been caught since
1996-97. Catches declined steadily to 27 tonnes in 2001-02, and have since risen to a
peak of 58 tonnes in 2006-07.
32
31
Most of the targeted commercial catch of blue cod is taken in the small potting fishery
in the outer Marlborough Sounds, particularly around D’Urville Island, Cook Strait,
and Cape Campbell. The main commercial areas are essentially spatially separated
from the recreational fishery. A code of practice exists for the Marlborough Sounds
that ensures the commercial fishers do not target blue cod inside the areas between
French Pass-Clay Point-Chetwode Island-Cape Jackson-Cape Koamaru (Figure 3).
32
Commercial catches taken in the Marlborough Sounds are reported within the
statistical area 017, which extends from D’Urville Island to Clifford Bay. Table 4
shows the reported commercial catches for different fishing methods from statistical
area 017. Catches of blue cod from this area varied over time with catches peaking in
1993-94 with 26 tonnes reported, and declining steadily to about seven tonnes in
2001-02. Since 2001-02 catches have increased steadily from 10 tonnes in 2002-03 to
25 tonnes in 2006-07. The most recent catch is the highest since 1993-94.
Table 4. Total Estimated Catch Weight (tonnes) of blue cod by method for Statistical Area 17
Fishing
Year
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
1991/92
1992/93
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Long Line
<1
<1
2
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Bottom
Trawl
<1
16
9
6
7
5
8
6
6
7
7
4
4
4
<1
3
2
2
1
Cod Pot
Dahn Line
2
3
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
1
<1
20
14
15
14
12
9
8
8
3
7
5
15
21
23
Hand Line
2
1
2
1
1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Rock
Lobster Pot
<1
<1
2
<1
<1
Set net
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
33
Potting accounts for the majority of the catch, which is the only method that
specifically targets blue cod. In 2006-07, 91% of the catch (23 tonnes) was taken by
potting. It is not possible to determine where the potting of blue cod occurs within
statistical area 017 from catch returns. Fishers’ anecdotal reports tell us that about half
the catches from potting in 2006-07 were taken south of the Marlborough Sounds to
Cape Campbell.
34
In 2003, a voluntary catch-spread regime was implemented by Talley’s Fisheries Ltd
and Challenger Finfisheries Management Company Ltd to prevent further increases in
commercial catches in the outer Marlborough Sounds. This regime places a limit on
the quantity of blue cod in areas where traditionally targeted by potting. Assurance
33
was given by other quota-holders that their effort would be spread throughout Tasman
& Golden Bays, and the West Coast.
Mäori Customary Fisheries
35
No quantitative information on historical or current Māori customary take is
available. However, bones found in middens suggest that blue cod was a significant
species in the traditional Māori take. Blue cod remains an important kaimoana
species for tangata whenua.
Illegal Catch
36
There is no quantitative information to estimate the level of illegal catch in the
commercial and recreational blue cod fisheries. However, the level of illegal activity
within both sectors is believed to be low. One of the contributing factors to the low
level of offence detection in the recreational fishery is the daily limit are difficult to
achieve because of low blue cod abundance.
Summary of Options
37
MFish proposes the following options within the Marlborough Sounds Area (as
defined by the Fisheries Regulations 1986, Challenger Area Amateur Fishing
Regulation 2A:
Either:
Option 1 - Status Quo
Or:
Option 2 – input & spatial controls
a) Reduce the amateur daily bag limit to two blue cod per person per day9
And/or:
b) Set a limit of six blue cod per boat for amateur fishers
And/or:
c) Restrict amateur fishers on multi-day trips to possessing a single daily bag limit
And:
d) Amateur fishers must not fillet or dehead blue cod prior to landing (gutting of blue
cod is still permitted)
e) Amateur fishers must retain all blue cod at or above MLS and cease targeting blue
cod there after.
9
Regulations, 2B was inserted by regs 2 and 3 Fisheries (Challenger Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986,
Amendment No 2 (SR 1993/287).
34
f) All hook and line fishing is prohibited from date of gazette to January 2011
(subject to review) in:
Either:
i)
Inner and middle areas of Queen Charlotte Sound (as defined as inside
a line from Bull Head to Ruaomoko Point (Arapawa Island) to
Otamango Point, including the Tory Channel to East Head and West
Head (sub-option 3A) (Figure 1).
And/or:
i)
Inner and middle areas of Pelorus Sound (as defined as inside a line
from Tawero Point to Whakamawahi Point and to a line from Burnt
Point to Post Office Point (sub-option 3B) (Figure 2)
And:
g) All commercial targeting of blue cod is prohibited inside waters between French
Pass-Clay Point-Chetwode Island-Cape Jackson-Cape Koamaru (Figure 3).
Figure 1. Proposed closed area in the Queen Charlotte Channel
35
Figure 2. Proposed closed area in the Pelorus Sound
36
Figure 3. Proposed closed area for commercial targeting of blue cod
Option 3 – Additional measures proposed by SoundFish
38
SoundFish proposes the controls outlined in Option 2 and the following additional
measures.
a) Within the Marlborough Sounds Area the following restrictions on the use of
fishing hooks for fishers fishing from a boat or vessel are proposed:
i)
Size 6/0 hook or larger to be used
ii)
One hook to be used per line
iii)
Set lining size 10/0 hook or larger hooks to be used
And/or:
b) The Marlborough Sounds Area is redefined with a new boundary based on the
existing Marlborough Sounds District Council (MDC) coastal boundary. The
proposed boundary extends from Cape Soucis in the west to Whites Bay in the
east and out to two nautical miles from shore (Figure 4).
37
Figure 4. Proposed boundary for Marlborough Sounds
Proposed boundary to
coincide with existing
Marlborough District
Council limits
Existing fishery
boundary for the
Marlborough Sounds
Rationale for Management Options
39
This IPP considers a range of measures for the Marlborough Sounds Area to achieve
this desired outcome including further reducing the amateur daily bag limit from three
to two fish per day, imposing a maximum boat limit of six fish, and temporarily
closing a number of areas to recreational fishing. The proposals will not apply to blue
cod fishing outside the Marlborough Sounds (ie, Challenger Fishery Management
Area (East) [4]) and along the west coast of the South Island (ie, Challenger Fisheries
Management Area).
40
To explore management measures that would be appropriate for the Marlborough
Sounds, MFish has discussed a range of options with the multi-sector group
SoundFish. These discussions have identified a range of new measures that balance
the needs of the Marlborough Sounds blue cod fishery and local community. A range
of measures have been proposed to accommodate community appetite for different
approaches and enforceability. The proposed options are intended to provide a suite
of measures that range in strength and allow stakeholders to consider whether
temporary area closures are necessary, and if so, at what scale. In combination, the
[4]
‘Challenger Fishery Management Area (East)’ encompasses Golden and Tasman Bays and is defined as being
the waters enclosed by a line due north of Farewell Spit to the boundary of the Challenger Fishery Management
Area then in a generally easterly, southerly and westerly direction to Clarence River and back to the point of
commencement (refer Regulation 2A of the Fisheries Challenger Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986).
38
mix of measures is designed to provide a good balance to enable populations to
rebuild, whilst ensuring the continued use of other fisheries in the Marlborough
Sounds.
41
Mfish also invites submissions for proposals from the Marlborough Sounds
community group SoundFish. These include measures for recreational boat fishers to
reduce the number of hooks used to one per line, with a minimum size hook of 6/0 for
line fishing and 10/0 for set lining. SoundFish have also proposed to amend the
existing Marlborough Sounds Area boundary.
42
The IPP does not review the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC 10). But, the
IPP proposes to prohibit commercial targeting of blue cod within a defined area of the
Marlborough Sounds to assist with the rebuilding of blue cod populations. The
proposed closed area applies to waters inside French Pass-Clay Point-Chetwode
Island-Cape Jackson-Cape Koamaru (Figure 4). Commercial fishers have already
agreed to not fish within this closed area under a voluntary arrangement and this
proposal formalises this arrangement.
43
In reviewing the Marlborough Sounds blue cod fishery, MFish accepts that a wide
range of physical and human factors influence fisheries resources. While fishing
pressure has had a significant impact on blue cod populations, both land-based
activities (ie, changes in land-use, forestry effects) and marine-based activities
(ie, fishing, marine farming, tourism) are also likely to contribute to the current state
of fishery.
44
The ongoing time-series of relative abundant surveys do not provide information on
whether habitat factors are the immediate cause of the decline in blue cod abundance.
This is because the surveys use pots and lines placed in the same reef locations each
year. These locations by the nature of the substrate are not susceptible to damage from
trawling or dredging, and have not shown signs of deterioration. Many of the inners
areas where blue cod have declined are also prohibited areas for dredging and
trawling.
45
MFish is unable to determine the effectiveness of voluntary measures on recreational
fishing such as the use of larger hooks (6/0 or greater) to achieve the desired
management objectives. Coupled with this, there is currently no information for the
overall mortality rate (hook-related and predation) for released blue cod, and the
accumulated impact. There is also very limited information available on spawning
locations, tidal dispersion of juveniles and these implications for blue cod
management.
46
Despite the information gaps, the available information for the recreational harvest
estimate, relative abundance, and incidental mortality are sufficient to conclude that
recreational fishing pressure is the principal and immediate cause of the decline.
MFish contends that additional management measures are necessary to build upon
those actions taken in 2003 to give greater certainty to rebuild localised blue cod
populations and to enable the return of a sustainable Marlborough Sounds blue cod
fishery in the near future.
10
TACC is currently set at 70 tonnes.
39
47
MFish acknowledges that a longer-term, ecosystem-based management approach is
required to promote the continued viability of the fisheries resources within the
Marlborough Sounds. The changes proposed in the management of this fishery
continue to build upon the management approach taken in 2003 to reduce recreational
fishing pressure.
48
MFish and the community will address the longer-term review of any implemented
proposals, research, and future ecosystem approaches to management, through the
Challenger Fin Fish Inshore Plan (CIFF). This plan recently commenced in December
2007.
49
When considering the effects of each management option including the status quo,
there are two broad considerations that must be taken into account. These are: (i) the
social, cultural and economic wellbeing of the Marlborough Sounds communities and
(ii) the ability for each measure to give greater certainty to rebuild localised
populations in depleted areas, whilst ensuring viable populations are not depleted
elsewhere. To assist with the evaluation of options to deliver these desired outcomes,
the four management objectives described previously should be considered.
50
The new measures are planned to commence from 1 October 2008 should they be
approved. A communication plan will be implemented to ensure all recreational
fishers are notified of changes to fishery regulations. The plan ensures the timely
rollout of an information and education package for fishers and fishing retail outlets.
Information pamphlets will be available from MFish offices, fishing retailers, and
marinas. MFish information boards will updated at main fisher access points such as
boat ramps and beaches. In addition, a series of press releases are to occur when any
changes are confirmed by the Minister of Fisheries and immediately prior to
commencement. Finally information will also be made available through the MFish
website and key stakeholder groups such as SoundFish and other recreational user
groups.
Assessment of Management Options
51
The proposed management measures do not include adjusting the existing MLS of 30
cm (total fish length). While a smaller MLS may allow fishers to attain their bag limit
quicker, this would lead to a higher incidental mortality as fishers retain the largest
fish caught. As such, this measure would undermine the intent of proposed lower bag
limit. Conversely, increasing the MLS would lead to a higher incidental mortality.
Therefore, MFish contends that retaining the existing 30 cm MLS is appropriate at
this time as the proposed reduction to the daily bag limit, restricting the accumulation
of catch, and no high-grading measures increases the effectiveness of the MLS.
52
The assessment for the different measures under each proposed option follows.
Option 1 – Status Quo
53
Under this option the existing management approach remains unchanged.
40
Impact
54
Fishing pressure has increased despite the reduction to the daily bag limit in 2003 and
poorer catch returns of blue cod. Retaining the status quo would not reduce total
recreational harvest levels for blue cod. Recreational fishing pressure continues to
remain high and so prevent a rebuilding of blue cod populations in depleted areas of
the Marlborough Sounds. In addition, fishing within the outer areas will continue to
remain high.
55
The relative abundance data in 2007 shows that east D’Urville Island has declined by
70% for pre-recruited and 43% for recruited fish. There is concern that the existing
bag limits continues to lead to a decline in the outer Marlborough Sounds, and may
lead to an unfolding of a serial depletion of populations. This is exacerbated by the
current ability of recreational fishers to accumulate bag limits on multi-day trips,
high-grading of large fish, and large numbers of fish being caught from recreational
fishing boats and charter vessels.
56
The potential for non-compliance within the recreational fishery will increase if the
blue cod fishery continues to decline. Declining fish numbers leads to ever decreasing
catch rates and fishers are tempted to retain fish smaller than the MLS.
Benefits
57
There are no real benefits of maintaining the status quo. Although this would avoid
the costs of measures to the community and fiscal costs for changing regulations,
raising community awareness, and compliance. These benefits would be outweighed
by the impacts of the depleted blue cod fishery to the fishers and wider community of
the Marlborough Sounds.
Costs
58
The continued depletion of blue cod populations in the Marlborough Sounds has
unmeasured implications for the local economy and tourism. Blue cod is the primary
recreational fishery within the Marlborough Sounds, and depleted populations affect
both the immediate recreational fishing sector and the wider community.
59
The decline in the Marlborough Sounds blue cod fishery is likely to have economic
implications for the local charter industry. There are a considerable number of charter
boats operating in Queen Charlotte Sound and Pelorus Sound that take tourists and
resident fishers into the Marlborough Sounds to catch fish. Given the importance of
the blue cod to the local recreational fishery, many charter boats specifically target
this species, particularly in the outer areas. A decline in blue cod populations may
dissuade some recreational fishers from using this service, although fishers will still
be able to catch a range of other ‘recreationally valued’ fish species including snapper,
kahawai and groper. The failure to ensure a sustainable and continued blue cod
fishery could reduce the economic viability of some charter boat operations in the
medium and long-term.
41
Option 2 - input & spatial controls
60
Under this option, MFish reduce the amateur daily bag limit of three blue cod per
person to two blue cod per person, and introduce a daily limit of six blue cod per boat.
Amateur fishers are restricted to possessing a single daily bag limit on multi-day trips
and high-grading of legal sized blue cod will be prohibited. In addition, MFish will
require amateur fishers to land whole or gutted fish only.
61
The spatial controls proposed in this option prohibit all hook and line fishing (for all
species) in the inner and middle areas of Queen Charlotte Sound and/or inner and
middle areas of Pelorus Sound. In addition, the option proposes to prohibit all
commercial targeting of blue cod inside waters between French Pass-Clay PointChetwode Island-Cape Jackson-Cape Koamaru.
Impacts
Input controls
62
The proposed daily bag limit of two blue cod per person represents a 33% reduction in
the number of blue cod for any individual recreational fisher.
63
Currently, recreational fishers are entitled to accumulate any number of bag limits
during a multi-day fishing trip. The proposed restriction to possess a single daily bag
limit reduces the number of blue cod taken by overall by recreational fishers who fish
multi-day trips. This measure will have greatest impact on fishers targeting blue cod
in the outer areas where trips longer than one day are more common, as well as
visiting vessels from adjacent areas such as the Wellington region.
64
A boat limit of six blue cod per day has the greatest impact on the recreational charter
sector, particularly chartered vessels that principally target blue cod.
65
Information on recreational charter fishing effort in the Marlborough Sounds is
limited. Anecdotal information suggests the number of charter (and larger) vessels
have increased in the Marlborough Sounds over the last decade. There is no
information to determine if charter-fishing effort has increased at a slower rate, the
same rate, or a faster rate than recreational effort generally. Nor is it possible to
determine the proportion of total recreational catch of blue cod in the Marlborough
Sounds taken by recreational fishers on charter vessels.
66
Boat limits are a tool that provides for some targeting of catch constraints to specific
groups of fishers. Introducing a boat limit is a realistic management option, if the best
available anecdotal information indicates targeted catch constraints are warranted.
Some reports from recreational fishers suggest fishers on charter vessels (and large
private recreational vessels) may take more fish because these vessels:
a) tend to carry large groups of fishers,
b) can fish the outer Marlborough Sounds
c) have larger holds to transport catch,
d) go out more regularly,
42
e) have experienced skippers that know where the fish can be found, and
f) are able to fish in rougher weather.
67
A boat limit applies to all vessels, not just charter vessels. At this time, MFish is not
aware of any reason why charter vessels carrying multiple fishers should be treated
differently to private vessels carrying multiple fishers. The proposed boat limit would
affect recreational fishers on vessels carrying three or more passengers if the
maximum daily bag limit is lowered to at two, and on vessels carrying two or more
passengers if the maximum daily bag limit is remains at three.
68
The requirement for amateur fishers to retain all blue cod at or above the MLS, and
then to cease targeting blue cod reduces the average size of blue cod retained by
fishers.
Spatial controls
69
The suggested areas for temporary closures focus on the worst depleted areas recorded
in the 2007 survey. A review of the proposed closures would take place in 2011 when
the next survey results are available.
70
There is uncertainty over how long a temporary area closure would be required. Long
Island and Tonga Island Marine Reserves have both shown signs of recovery within 3
to 4 years of fishing cessation. The geography and low base of juvenile and adult fish
within the worst depleted areas of the Marlborough Sounds may require a longer
period for populations to recover.
71
This measure restricts access to large areas of both Queen Charlotte Sound and
Pelorus Sound to all amateur hook and line fishers. Many fishers may find it difficult
to fish, in particular shore-based fishers and those fishers with smaller boats, who will
be required to travel further afield to alternative areas that are open. The balance for
such a measure is to consider the impact this would have on fishers for other species
and the wider community, and whether the remaining open areas would be sufficient
for continued recreational fishing for blue cod and other species in Marlborough
Sounds.
72
Closing off large areas of inner and middle Marlborough Sounds fishery will lead to a
displacement of fishing effort to areas remaining open. This will already have
occurred to a lesser extent as many fishers seek more productive areas for catching
blue cod. The proposed amateur daily bag limit of two per person helps to alleviate
this problem.
73
There are no additional impacts associated with the proposed changes to the
strengthening of the existing voluntary code, which restricts commercial harvesting
inside the areas between French Pass-Clay Point-Chetwode Island-Cape Jackson-Cape
Koamaru. This area is already subject to a voluntary closure by commercial potting
fishers, and as such, there is no change to commercial fishing practices.
43
Benefits
Input controls
74
These measures have greater certainty of achieving the desired outcome of reducing
both the recreational harvest and incidental mortality of blue cod when considered
together.
75
Decreasing the amateur daily bag limit to two blue cod per person and imposing a
limit of six blue cod per boat gives greater certainty to safeguarding blue cod
populations in the open areas from the transfer of effort. This measure effectively
lowers the catch level of recruited fish and reduces the incidental mortality by
reducing the number of undersize fish caught prior to attaining the bag limit. This
represents a 33% reduction in extraction, and lowers the incentive for fishers to fish
for blue cod in the outer Marlborough Sounds. Restricting recreational boats to a
maximum limit of six blue cod per day may help to lessen the relatively high impact
that larger vessels may have in local areas, and help to spread effort to other species.
The proportion of the total recreational catch the proposed boat limit would decrease
is unknown. These measures are the strongest proposed to prevent local depletion of
blue cod in the outer areas.
76
The proposed measure to restrict fishers to possess a maximum of a single daily bag
limit prevents fishers from accumulating bag limits for blue cod on multi-day trips.
This measure compliments the proposed bag limit by preventing fishers from
accumulating catches. The measure improves compliance for fishers who claim to
have arrived by boat from outside the Marlborough Sounds area where the bag limit is
higher. It will also further reduce the extraction of blue cod.
77
The proposed regulation requiring recreational fishers to land whole (including
gutted) blue cod compliments the proposed daily bag limit and existing MLS
measures. Currently, it is possible for fishers to fillet blue cod onboard vessels. This
makes it difficult for fisheries compliance to determine whether a fisher’s daily bag
limit or the size of landed blue cod are compliant.
78
The regulation requiring all fishers to take all legal sized fish caught up to their bag
limit prevents high-grading by fishers. This measure compliments the proposed daily
bag limit and ensures the existing MLS is effective to reduce both the number of blue
cod caught prior to attaining a bag limit and the incidental fishing mortality.
79
The proposed amateur daily bag limit for blue cod does not restrict fishers from taking
other high value target species such as snapper and tarakihi. When fishing pressure is
greatest during the summer months, many other species are more abundant such as
snapper, kahawai and kingfish.
Spatial controls
80
There have been three previous initiatives since 1993 to reduce the recreational
harvest of blue cod in the Marlborough Sounds. These measures are not achieving the
desired effect of rebuilding localised blue cod populations. The proposed temporary
area closures for all hook and line fishing afford depleted areas the highest likelihood
for blue cod populations to rebuild in the shortest time. Closing an area prevents
44
harvesting and incidental mortality of blue cod. Information from marine reserve
studies suggests that blue cod can recover fully within 6 years once fishing pressure
has ceased 11.
81
Temporarily closing off areas to all recreational hook and line fishing optimises the
effectiveness of compliance and enforcement. A recreational blue cod fishing only
closure is not realistic as detection of non-compliant fishers would be difficult.
82
Prohibiting the commercial targeting of blue cod inside the areas between French
Pass-Clay Point-Chetwode Island-Cape Jackson-Cape Koamaru, strengthens the
existing voluntary agreement. This measure ensures that the future recovery of blue
cod populations achieved through the proposed measures to the recreational sector is
afforded greater protection than the existing voluntary code. This measure will give
greater confidence to the recreational sector and assist with overall buy-in by the
community.
Costs
Input controls
83
Fisheries management objectives are dependent upon high levels of compliance with
the sustainability and allocation rules. MFish’s compliance strategic goals are to
maximise voluntary compliance and maintain an effective deterrent.
84
Recreational fishers are expected to be aware of the fishing regulations. MFish
compliance activities include informing recreational users and providing information
material on relevant rules. Operational compliance activities include initiatives to
raise awareness of the rules, as well as enforcement activities including patrols,
inspections, infringement notices and prosecution of more serious offences.
85
To maximise voluntary compliance MFish will need to conduct an ongoing education
campaign to provide information and advice to promote high levels of understanding
and acceptance of the regulatory changes. Signage and pamphlets specific for the
Marlborough Sounds Area, along with public advertisements and media releases will
be commence following a final decision.
86
To create an effective deterrent in the fishery will require a number of tools including
enforcement and legislative deterrents, land and at-sea monitoring, and inspections by
Fishery Officers.
87
Legislation deterrents come through a structured penalty regime for offences with
ramped infringement fines for breaches of daily bag limits ($250 fine applicable for
taking/possession up to less than twice the daily bag limit and a $500 fine for
taking/possession over twice the daily bag limit). Court proceedings with a maximum
penalty of $20,000 with resultant forfeiture upon conviction of any property used in
the commission of the offence apply for a breach where more than three times the
daily bag limit is taken.
11
Data for the relative biomass of blue cod from Long Island Marine Reserve has shown the previously fished
areas recovered quickly and reached naturally varying levels in a 6 year period.
45
88
Maintaining an effective presence of Fishery Officers within the Marlborough Sounds
Area will be important for providing an effective deterrent for offences, as well as
meeting the community expectations of the enforcement of rules and response to
reports of possible breaches. This will be particularly challenging given the large
geographic area policed, the relative unfettered access and the large recreational
fishing community who use the Marlborough Sounds resource. Some fisheries
offences such as high-grading are also difficult to detect. MFish has not yet
determined the cost of compliance for the proposed regulatory changes.
Spatial controls
89
Blue cod is an iconic species for the Marlborough Sounds with many visitors coming
to the area to partake in recreational fishing for the species. Closing large areas to
fishing has the potential to reduce visitor numbers to the Marlborough Sounds with
associated effects to local economy in the short term.
90
The measure incurs a cost to charter operators who may find it necessary to cancel
shorter trips in favour of longer trips to access areas open to hook and line fishing.
Charter boats that normally fish in the proposed closed areas would need to modify
their route and operation. This has implications for the viability of their business.
91
The proposals to close areas within Queen Charlotte Sound and/or Pelorus Sound
incurs increased costs in fuel and time to amateur and charter recreational fishers who
continue to fish beyond the closed areas.
92
There is an increase in communication costs associated with the proposed changes.
These include an enduring education campaign to provide information and advice to
promote high levels of understanding and acceptance of the regulatory changes. Once
final decisions are made this would include signage and pamphlets specific for the
Marlborough Sounds Area, along with public advertisements and media releases.
Option 3 - Additional measures proposed by SoundFish
93
Under this option all measures proposed in Option 2 would apply. In addition, boat
fishers would be restricted to the:
a) use of size 6/0 hook or larger
b) one hook per line
c) set lining would require the use of 10/0 hooks or larger.
94
SoundFish also proposes a new boundary for the Marlborough Sounds Area. The
proposed boundary would extend from Cape Soucis in the west to Whites Bay in the
east and out to two nautical miles from shore (Figure 4).
Impact
95
12
Since 2003, MFish 12 and SoundFish have promoted the use of large (size 6/0 or larger
gape) hooks, as well as other best fishing practices for recreational fishers targeting
Guidelines for blue cod fishing in the Challenger Fishery Management Area (East)
46
blue cod. These measures are voluntary and adherences to such guidelines are
considered to be low within the Marlborough Sounds. This is compounded by the
high number of summer visitors fishing the area.
96
Size 6/0 hooks still catch undersize cod of 20 cm and larger, but have a far lower
mortality rate compared to smaller hooks. This is because of the larger gape size that
prevents incidents of deep hooking in the throat, gills and stomach of both undersize
fish and recruited fish. Using only one hook per fisher greatly reduces the possibility
of foul hooking, and decreases instances of physical damage to fish from poor
handling of fish when landing and unhooking the catch.
97
The hook measures proposed by SoundFish would require all hook and line fishers
from boats or vessels in the Marlborough Sounds to use a minimum size 6/0 hook and
one hook per fisher. Size 10/0 or larger hooks would be required for set lining. This
measure would not change methods for fishers from the shore, jetty or wharf in the
Marlborough Sounds when permitted.
98
MFish considers the proposed hook regulations challenging for fisheries compliance,
since it requires inspecting boat fishers’ hooks and tackle. In addition, the large
number and widespread distribution of fishing vessels within the Marlborough Sounds
will draw on fisheries compliance resources.
99
The proposed change to the existing boundary is based on the existing Marlborough
Sounds MDC coastal boundary. The proposed boundary extends from Cape Soucis in
the west to Whites Bay in the east and out to two nautical miles from shore (Figure 4).
100
The boundary is larger than the existing area, extends further seaward into Cook Strait
some two nautical miles from all landmarks, and encompasses the additional areas of
Crosilles Harbour to west D’Urville, and Port Underwood, Robin Hood Bay, Whites
Bay and the southern limit at the Wairau Bar.
101
None of the additional areas within the larger boundary other than west D’Urville are
currently included in the blue cod relative biomass surveys. It is not possible to
comment whether there is a decline of blue cod requiring inclusion of these areas
within the proposed regulatory changes. The 2004 and 2007 survey data for west
D’Urville Island suggest that the local blue cod population is viable. Nevertheless,
these outer lying areas are equally vulnerable to displacement in effort from fishers
seeking locations that are more productive.
Benefits
102
The proposed hook regulations would have the following benefits for the fishery:
•
A marked reduction of hook and line release mortality for blue cod (mortality
from predation of released fish will still occur).
•
Allow continuation of fishing from the shore, wharf or jetty using smaller
hooks. This will allow fishing for baitfish from the shore and use of multihook jigs and small spinners. These fishing methods are an important
component of recreational fishing and are also the methods by which youths
learn to fish.
47
•
Allows setlining within the Marlborough Sounds to continue whilst
minimising any impacts to blue cod.
103
These benefits extend across the whole of Marlborough Sounds without reducing
access or effort to blue cod or other fisheries.
104
The proposed boundary reflects the existing MDC coastal boundary. This will assist
with fishery management initiatives in the future, and supports ecosystem
management approaches that will require integrated management with the Resource
Management Act.
Costs
105
The proposed hook regulations would impose a small cost on recreational boat fishers
to ensure that their fishing tackle was compliant. In addition, tackle retailers may
incur a cost through reductions in sales of smaller hooks and multi-hook rigs.
106
Fisheries compliance would incur an increase in costs. This will be due to
requirements to define the legal requirements for the hook sizes, develop a hook
gauge and communicate changes to fishers through notices, and pamphlets.
Risk assessment of proposed options
107
A summary of potential risks for the proposed options and appropriate mitigation
measures is listed in Table 5.
48
Table 1. Identification of risks and mitigating measures for Option 2, and 3.
Risk
Mitigating measure(s)
Closed areas increase
migration and
concentration of fishing
pressure in open areas
causing depletion impacts
to these areas.
Ensure temporary closures are only closed for as long as necessary.
Fishers’ compliance with
new measures is low
Basing measures on feedback from consultation should improve the
community buy-in and improve compliance rates.
Implement complimentary measures such as reduction of the daily
bag limit and no accumulation of bag limits for multi-day trips to
reduce extraction.
Implement complimentary measures to reduce mortality of juveniles
such as no high grading.
Implementing a communication plan will improve understanding of
changes to regulations, improve awareness of issues facing the
fishery, and identify differences in daily bag limit and minimum
legal size between areas. Inform key stakeholders such as fishers,
tackle retailers and the tourist sector.
Update notice boards, website and pamphlets with changes to
regulations.
Provide clear guidance for the definition of the minimum gape size
for size 6/0 and 10/0 hook measures. Liaise with fishing retailers,
industry and fishing associations to ensure measure is widely
understood and hooks available in Marlborough Sounds Area.
Review of survey data for
ending or continuing
closure leads to
disagreement between
stakeholders for which
action is appropriate
Set clear objectives for recovery based upon science advice and
community wishes.
Ensure review of data is part of a transparent process including a
consultation process.
Blue cod populations
rebuild but are quickly redepleted in a ‘gold rush’
soon after fishery is reopened.
The proposed changes to bag limits and other measures will lower
existing extraction of blue cod and incidental mortality. Part of the
process to reopen fishery should review the success of proposed
measures, and consider the whether they are sufficient to ensure
sustainable harvest levels.
Blue cod populations do
not rebuild in the inner
areas by 2011.
Review survey data in 2011 and consider longer closure period.
Serial depletion extends to
other areas of the
Marlborough Sounds
Review available data from fishing sectors and consider appropriate
actions with SoundFish and through Challenger Fin Fish Plan.
It may be necessary to decrease the periodicity of the relative
biomass survey from four years and increase review period.
49
Other Management Controls to be considered
Voluntary measures - Best fishing practices
108
Existing guidance for fishers to adopt best fishing practices has a role in minimising
the incidental mortality of blue cod, assist rebuilding of populations, and improve the
sustainability of the recreational fishery. These voluntary measures have been
promoted by MFish and SoundFish through pamphlets and notices at fishing locations
and boat ramps to reduce the incidental mortality of blue cod. The best fishing
practices includes guidance on a range of issues that include using only one hook per
line, keeping tension in fishing lines, use of size 6/0 or larger and wide gap hooks, use
of barbless hooks, fish handling and release methods. However, fisheries compliance
report that adherence to this guidance is low particularly among visiting fishers. The
low adherence to voluntary guidance has given rise to some of the proposed measures
described in this paper. MFish support increased application of best fishing practices
and a system to monitor the adoption of these methods by fishers.
Statutory Considerations
109
Central to the proposed options are the legal requirements of the Fisheries Act 1996.
Purpose- Section 8
110
Section 8 of the Act describes the purpose of the Act as being “to provide for the
utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability”; this is the core
obligation to heed when considering the management options.
Environmental Principles-Section 9
111
Section 9(a) requires that: “associated or dependant species should be maintained
above a level that ensures their long-term viability” Associated or dependent species
are defined by the Fisheries Act 1996 as any non-harvest species taken or otherwise
affected by the taking of any harvested species. The main methods of harvesting blue
cod by recreational fishers are rod fishing, handlining, and longlining. These fishing
methods are likely to catch a range of other finfish species and sometimes benthic
material when targeting blue cod. The effects of recreational fishing for blue cod on
non-target species have not been quantified, but are likely to be minor.
112
There is little targeting of blue cod by trawling. In addition, trawling is prohibited in
most areas of the Marlborough Sounds, particular those areas identified as
ecologically significant. The effects of trawling in the outer Marlborough Sounds are
mitigated through gear restrictions. The main method to target blue cod is
cod-potting. This method has a relatively benign impact on the marine environment
and is restricted to the outer Marlborough Sounds and Cook Strait. Catches of nontarget species by cod-potting are minor and are generally restricted to octopus and
conger eel.
50
Maintaining Biodiversity
113
Section 9(b) requires that “biological diversity of the aquatic life should be
maintained.” Maintaining current fishing pressure within the depleted areas of the
Marlborough Sounds threatens the viability of local blue cod populations. There is
one marine reserves within the Marlborough Sounds fishery; Long IslandKokomohua, which incorporates known blue cod habitat. This area acts to protect
biodiversity for the purposes of scientific study. Studies of blue cod in the Long
Island-Kokomohua marine reserve suggest that closing off areas to fishing can
increase biomass within that area, thereby increasing the resident population size. As
scientific studies progress within this marine reserve, there is potential for the
applicability of rotational fishing of blue cod populations to be modelled.
Habitats of Significance
114
Section 9(c) requires that “a habitat of particular significance for fisheries
management should be protected”. The Marlborough Sounds coastal plan identifies a
number of areas of ecological significance. These areas lie within areas protected
from active fishing methods. MFish has an obligation to avoid authorising undue
adverse effects from marine farming on habitats of significance for fisheries
management, and this includes important blue cod habitats. [Are the matters being
referred to here “habitats of particular significance for fisheries management?]
Information Principles-Section10
115
Section 10 requires that “decisions should be based on best available information;
decision makers should consider any uncertainty in the information available” and
“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 this Act.”
116
MFish has based the assessment of the Marlborough Sounds blue cod fishery on the
review of data from the relative abundance surveys conducted by NIWA. This data is
the “best available information” used to base assessment of the status of blue cod
abundance. This information is reliable and subject to peer review. Observations by
MFish compliance staff and many recreational fishers support the findings of the
surveys.
117
When considering the principle causes of the decline the relative biomass surveys,
recreational fishing surveys, commercial catch returns and anecdotal returns from
fishers and MFish staff all indicate that recreational fishing pressure is the single
biggest and immediate impact affecting the fishery.
Consultation-Section 12
118
When considering the setting of sustainability measures (s 11) there is an obligation
under section 12 to undertake consultation. The Act sets out the obligation to “consult
with such persons or organisations as the Minister considers are 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 Maori, environmental,
commercial and recreational interests.”
51
119
MFish discussed the issues outlined in this IPP with SoundFish. This multistakeholder group included representatives from all fishing sectors in the Marlborough
Sounds including Maori, commercial and recreational. This pre-consultation has
helped to shape the options presented here.
120
The proposals set out in this IPP have the greatest affect on recreational fishers and
very small changes to existing agreements with commercial fishers. Measures within
this document do not propose to alter or affect customary fishing rights.
Relevant Plans and Strategies-section 11
121
122
The Fisheries Act 1996 requires consideration of the implications of any proposed
sustainability measure on the management strategy for the coastal area in general.
Before setting or varying any sustainability measure, the Minister must, under section
11(2) have regard to:
•
any regional policy statement, regional plan or proposed regional plan under
the Resource Management Act 1991 and
•
any management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1987 that applies
to the coastal marine area.
The BCO 7 fisheries management area falls within the jurisdiction of MDC. MDC
are responsible for preparing regional policy statements and proposed resource
management plans that relate to the coastal area. Additionally, the Department of
Conservation has a conservation management strategy that applies across the fishery.
MFish is not aware of any relevant provisions in these plans or statements that are
contravened by current blue cod fishing practices. MFish will consult with MDC and
the Department of Consultation over the proposals set out in this IPP.
Other Management Issues
123
This IPP proposes short-term and immediate management measures in response to the
recently available information from the 2007 relative abundance survey for blue cod.
124
MFish with SoundFish will continue to promote best fishing practices to recreational
fishers within the Marlborough Sounds. MFish will consider the needs for future
research to establish the most appropriate hook types and releasing methods for
optimising the survival of released blue cod and improving the sustainability of
recreational fishing practices.
125
Should temporary closure of areas of the fishery be implemented, it is proposed that
the CIFF would assume responsibility for setting the success criteria to determine
when temporary closures should finish. Prior to reopening a closed fishery it will also
be necessary for the CIFF to consider the necessity for any further regulation to ensure
long-term sustainability is maintained. The CIFF will work closely with community
groups such as SoundFish to continue this longer-term management work.
126
MFish will review the requirement for more frequent surveys of blue cod and
extending the survey strata to include areas such as Port Underwood. From 2007,
52
these surveys are on a four-year cycle in keeping with surveys in other management
areas. The next blue cod survey is scheduled for 2011.
127
MFish will work closely with Talleys Fisheries Ltd and Challenger Finfish
Management Company to strengthen the existing catch-spread regime with a process
for the bi-annual review of catch returns data. This agreement will ensure that the
commercial targeting of blue cod does not increase within the Marlborough Sounds
but spread across the wider areas of the Challenger fisheries management area.
53
Appendices
Further Statutory Considerations
g)
Section 5(a) and (b) – Application of international obligations and Treaty
of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992: [There is a wide range
of international obligations relating to fishing (including sustainability and
utilisation of fishstocks and maintaining biodiversity). MFish considers issues
arising under international obligations and the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 are adequately addressed in
the management options. Note specific issues may arise that will need to be
referred to (such as taonga species) as the Settlement Act does impose ongoing
Treaty obligations on Crown and to develop policies to help recognise
customary use and management practices.]
h)
Section 10 – Information principles: [State the information sources relied
upon – plenary report, recreational diary survey etc. Refer to the adequacy,
reliability and certainty of the information contained. Describe what
weighting (ie degree of caution) should be placed on the
information.[Anything further on section 10 should be included above in body
of the Paper].
i)
Section 297 –General Regulations-Section 297(1)(a) of the Fisheries Act
1996 allows the making of regulations
ii)
regulating, authorising or prohibiting the taking or possession of fish,
aquatic life, or seaweed from any area;
iii)
regulating or prohibiting the taking or possession of fish, aquatic life,
or seaweed at any time, or for any period;
vi)
regulating or prohibiting the return of fish aquatic life, or seaweed to
any waters;
viii)
regulating or prohibiting the possession or use of any kind of gear,
equipment, or device used for, or related to fishing;
x)
regulating the number or weight of any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed
that may be taken or possessed, whether by reference to any period or
on any other basis whatever; and prohibiting the taking or possession of
any number or weight of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed that exceeds the
specified maximum number or weight;
xii)
regulating the methods by, or the circumstances under which, fish,
aquatic life, or seaweed may be held, stored, conveyed, or identified,
including the use of any containers marks, or labels;
54
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
Review of Regulatory Measures and Other Management Controls for
blue cod in the Marlborough Sounds
Executive summary
Recent information on blue cod from the 2007 biomass survey shows a continued decline of
blue cod abundance throughout the Marlborough Sounds. All areas recorded the lowest
numbers of juveniles from a time-series of surveys since 1995 - with the inner Queen
Charlotte Sound reporting no blue cod (both adults and juveniles). Only the outer areas of the
Marlborough Sounds recorded a reasonable number of adult blue cod, although populations
in the east D’Urville Island area also recorded a marked decline. This serial depletion is
consistent with a high level of recreational fishing pressure targeting the species in the
Marlborough Sounds. This is the overriding and immediate factor impacting on localised blue
cod populations.
MFish proposes a suite of new measures for the recreational blue cod fishery to reduce both
harvest levels and incidental fishing mortality to allow populations to rebuild. The proposed
measures include the following:
•
Temporary closure of parts of the Queen Charlotte Sound and/or Pelorus Sound to
all finfishing with hook and line.
•
The daily bag limit is reduced from 3 to 2 blue cod per person and a limit of 6
blue cod per boat is introduced.
•
Possession of only one day’s bag limit on multi day trips.
•
Landing of whole or gutted blue cod.
•
No high grading of legal sized (≥30cm) blue cod
•
Strengthen the existing voluntary commercial agreement to prevent commercial
fishers from targeting blue cod within large areas of the Queen Charlotte Sound
and Pelorus Sound.
The paper also considers proposals by the multi-sector group SoundFish to require boat
fishers to use one hook only and large hooks (6/0 or greater) and amend the Marlborough
Sounds Area boundary.
Adequacy statement
This Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by the Ministry of Fisheries’
Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Committee and is considered adequate according to the
criteria agreed by Cabinet.
Status quo and Problem
The continued decline of blue cod abundance in the Marlborough Sounds in spite of previous
measures indicates that current recreational fishing pressure is still too high to allow a rebuild
of localised populations. Concentrated recreational fishing effort predominantly from boats
has resulted in too many recruited fish being caught from the inner and middle areas of
Queen Charlotte Sound and Pelorus Sound. It is also most likely that the accumulated
mortality of returned fish from the recreational fishery has contributed to the decline of pre-
55
recruited and juvenile blue cod across most areas of the Marlborough Sounds. Retaining the
status quo would not reduce recreational harvest levels for blue cod. Recreational fishing
pressure is likely to continue to remain high and so prevent a rebuilding of blue cod
populations in depleted areas of the Marlborough Sounds. In addition, fishing within the
outer areas will still continue to remain high.
There is concern that the existing bag limits will continue to lead to a decline in the outer
Marlborough Sounds, and may lead to an unfolding of a serial depletion of populations. This
is exacerbated by the current ability of recreational fishers to accumulate bag limits on multi
day trips, high-grading of large fish and large numbers of fish being caught from recreational
fishing boats and charter vessels.
The potential for non-compliance within the recreational fishery may increase if the blue cod
fishery continues to decline. Declining fish numbers will lead to ever decreasing catch rates
and fishers may be tempted to retain fish smaller than the minimum legal size.
The continued depletion of blue cod populations in the Marlborough Sounds will have
unmeasured implications for the local economy and tourism. Blue cod is the primary
recreational fishery within the Marlborough Sounds, and depleted populations will affect the
both the immediate recreational fishing sector and wider community.
The decline in the Marlborough Sounds fishery is likely to have economic implications for
the local charter industry. There are a considerable number of charter boats operating in
Queen Charlotte and Pelorus Sounds that take tourists and resident fishers into the
Marlborough Sounds to catch fish. Given the importance of the blue cod to the local
recreational fishery, many charter boats specifically target this species, particularly in the
outer areas. A decline in blue cod populations may dissuade some recreational fishers from
using this service, although fishers will still be able to catch a range of other ‘recreationally
valued’ fish species including snapper, kahawai and groper. Although charter vessels have
no property rights, the failure to ensure a sustainable and continued blue cod fishery could
reduce the economic viability of some charter boat operations in the medium and long-term.
MFish contends that additional management measures are necessary to give greater certainty
for localised blue cod populations to rebuild in depleted areas and safeguard the currently
productive outer areas from high fishing pressure.
Objectives
Lower exploitation rates in depleted areas to a level that will enable the rebuild of localised
populations.
Ensure the fishery in the outer areas is sustainably fished and are not serially depleted
through displacement of fishing effort from the inner and mid areas.
Ensure the proposed measures are practicable both for fishers and fisheries compliance.
Ensure the proposed fisheries measures have sufficient community buy-in to be effective.
Alternative options
When deciding on management options it is important to consider that previous initiatives
56
since 1993 have not been successful to reduce recreational harvest levels of blue cod through
amateur daily bag limit reductions and minimum legal size adjustments. Blue cod continues
to be the most popular target finfish species for recreational fishers in the Marlborough
Sounds and fishing pressure remains high. The current daily bag limit of three blue cod per
person leaves little scope for further catch reduction without the need for temporary area
closures.
Due to the limited scope of available options the IPP proposes a range of complimentary
recreational fishery input controls. As an alternative option these measures can be considered
individually or in combination with others. The measures will be most effective if
implemented as a whole.
In addition, spatial control options are proposed for temporary closures of part of the Queen
Charlotte Sound and/or part of Pelorus Sound.
Proposed option
These measures have greater certainty of achieving the desired outcome of reducing both the
recreational harvest and incidental mortality when considered together. As individual
measures the benefits are reduced.
Decreasing the amateur daily bag limit to two blue cod per person and imposing a limit of six
blue cod per boat will give greater certainty to safeguarding blue cod populations in the open
areas from the transfer of effort. This measure will effectively reduce the catch level of
recruited fish and reduce the incidental mortality by reducing the number of undersize fish
caught prior to attaining the bag limit. This represents a 33% reduction in extraction, and
lowers the incentive for fishers to fish for blue cod in the outer Marlborough Sounds.
Currently, recreational fishers are entitled to accumulate any number of bag limits during a
multi-day fishing trip. The proposed restriction to possess a single daily bag limit reduces the
number of blue cod taken by overall by recreational fishers who fish multi-day trips. This
measure will have greatest impact on fishers targeting blue cod in the outer areas where trips
longer than one day are more common, as well as visiting vessels from adjacent areas such as
the Wellington region. The measure will simplify compliance for fishers who claim to have
arrived by boat from outside the Marlborough Sounds area where the bag limit is higher. It
will also further reduce the extraction of blue cod.
Restricting recreational boats to a maximum limit of six blue cod per day helps to lessen the
relatively high impact that larger vessels can have, and help to spread effort to other species.
These measures are the strongest proposed to prevent local depletion of blue cod in the outer
areas. A boat limit of six blue cod per day has the greatest impact on the recreational charter
sector, particularly chartered vessels that principally target blue cod. To some extent these
fishers will already have had their catches limited through the localised depletion of blue cod.
The proposed amateur daily bag limit and boat limit for blue cod will not restrict fishers from
taking other high value target species such as snapper and tarakihi. When fishing pressure is
greatest during the summer months many other species are more abundant such as snapper,
kahawai and kingfish.
There is currently no available information to determine the cost of this proposed measure to
57
the recreational charter fleet and associated industries.
The requirement for amateur fishers to retain all blue cod at or above the MLS, and then to
cease targeting blue cod reduces the average size of blue cod retained by fishers. This
measure compliments the proposed daily bag limit and ensures the existing MLS is effective
to reduce both the number of blue cod caught prior to attaining a bag limit and the incidental
fishing mortality.
The proposed regulation to require recreational fishers to land whole (including gutted) blue
cod will compliment the proposed daily bag limit and existing MLS measures. Currently, it is
possible for fishers to fillet blue cod onboard vessels. This makes it difficult for fisheries
compliance to determine whether a fisher’s daily bag limit or the size of landed blue cod are
compliant.
The regulation to require all fishers to take all legal sized fish caught up to their bag limit will
prevent high-grading by fishers. This measure will compliment the proposed daily bag limit
and ensure the existing MLS is effective to reduce both the number of blue cod caught prior
to attaining a bag limit and the incidental fishing mortality. There is an associated increase in
costs for compliance to ensure this measure is effective.
There have been three previous initiatives since 1993 to reduce the recreational harvest of
blue cod in the Marlborough Sounds. These measures are not achieving the desired effect of
rebuilding localised blue cod populations. The proposed temporary area closures for all hook
and line fishing afford depleted areas the highest likelihood for blue cod populations to
rebuild and in the shortest time. Closing an area will prevent harvesting and incidental
mortality of blue cod. Information from marine reserve studies suggests that blue cod can
recover relatively quickly once fishing pressure has ceased 13.
The proposed temporary closures include all recreational hook and line fishing. This is
necessary to optimise compliance and enforcement of closed areas. A recreational blue cod
fishing only closure is not realistic as detection of non-compliant fishers would be
impractical.
The suggested areas for temporary closures focus on the worst depleted areas recorded in the
2007 survey. A review of the proposed closures would take place in 2011 when the next
survey results are available.
There is uncertainty over how long a temporary area closure would be required. Long Island
and Tonga Island Marine Reserves have both shown signs of recovery within 3 to 4 years of
fishing cessation. The geography and low base of juvenile and adult fish within the worst
depleted areas of the Marlborough Sounds may require a longer period for populations to
recover.
This measure will restrict access to large areas of both Queen Charlotte Sound and Pelorus
Sound to all amateur hook and line fishers. Many fishers will find it difficult to fish, in
particular shore-based fishers and those fishers with smaller boats, who will be required to
travel further afield to alternative areas that are open. The balance for such a measure is to
consider the impact this would have on fishers for other species and the wider community,
13
Data for the relative biomass of blue cod from Long Island Marine Reserve has shown the previously fished
areas recovered quickly and reached naturally varying levels in a 6 year period.
58
and whether the remaining open areas would be sufficient for continued recreational fishing
for blue cod and other species in Marlborough Sounds.
Closing off large areas of inner and middle Marlborough Sounds fishery will lead to a
displacement of fishing effort to areas remaining open. This will already have occurred to a
lesser extent as many fishers seek more productive areas for catching blue cod. The proposed
amateur daily bag limit of two per person will help to alleviate this problem.
Blue cod is an iconic species for the Marlborough Sounds with many visitors coming to the
area to partake in recreational fishing for the species. Closing large areas to fishing has the
potential to reduce visitor numbers to the Marlborough Sounds with associated effects to
local economy in the short term.
The measure incurs a cost to charter operators who may find it necessary to cancel shorter
trips in favour of longer trips to access areas open to hook and line fishing. Charter boats that
normally fish in the proposed closed areas would need to modify their route and operation.
This has implications for the viability of their business.
The proposals to close areas within Queen Charlotte Sound and/or Pelorus Sound incurs
increased costs in fuel and time to amateur and charter recreational fishers who continue to
fish beyond the closed areas.
There is an increase in communication costs associated with the proposed changes. These
include an enduring education campaign to provide information and advice to promote high
levels of understanding and acceptance of the regulatory changes. Once final decisions are
made this would include signage and pamphlets specific for the Marlborough Sounds Area,
along with public advertisements and media releases.
Prohibiting the commercial targeting of blue cod inside the areas between French Pass-Clay
Point-Chetwode Island-Cape Jackson-Cape Koamaru, strengthens the existing voluntary
agreement without effecting the commercial harvest of blue cod. This measure will ensure
that the future recovery of blue cod populations achieved through the proposed measures to
the recreational sector is afforded greater protection than the existing voluntary code. This
measure will give greater confidence to the recreational sector and assist with overall buy-in
by the community.
Since 2003, MFish 14 and SoundFish have promoted the use of large (size 6/0 or larger gape)
hooks, as well as other best fishing practices for recreational fishers targeting blue cod.
These measures are voluntary and adherences to such guidelines are considered to be low
within the Marlborough Sounds. This is compounded by the high number of summer visitors
fishing the area.
Size 6/0 hooks still catch undersize cod of 20 cm and larger, but have a far lower mortality
rate compared to smaller hooks. This is because of the larger gape size that prevents incidents
of deep hooking in the throat, gills and stomach of both undersize fish and recruited fish.
Using only one hook per fisher greatly reduces the possibility of foul hooking, and decreases
instances of physical damage to fish from poor handling of fish when landing and unhooking
the catch.
14
Guidelines for blue cod fishing in the Challenger Fishery Management Area (East)
59
The hook measures proposed by SoundFish would require all hook and line fishers from
boats or vessels in the Marlborough Sounds to use a minimum size 6/0 hook and one hook
per fisher. Size 10/0 or larger hooks would be required for set lining. This measure would not
change methods for fishers from the shore, jetty or wharf in the Marlborough Sounds when
permitted.
The proposed hook regulations would have the following benefits for the fishery:
• A marked reduction of hook and line release mortality for blue cod (mortality
from predation of released fish will still occur).
•
Allow continuation of fishing from the shore, wharf or jetty using smaller
hooks. This will allow fishing for baitfish from the shore and use of multihook jigs and small spinners. These fishing methods are an important
component of recreational fishing and are also the methods by which youths
learn to fish.
•
Allows setlining within the Marlborough Sounds to continue whilst
minimising any impacts to blue cod.
These benefits extend across the whole of Marlborough Sounds without reducing access or
effort to blue cod or other fisheries.
MFish considers the proposed hook regulations challenging for fisheries compliance, since it
requires inspecting boat fishers’ hooks and tackle. In addition, the large number and
widespread distribution of fishing vessels within the Marlborough Sounds will draw on
fisheries compliance resources.
The proposed change to the existing boundary is based on the existing Marlborough Sounds
MDC coastal boundary. The proposed boundary extends from Cape Soucis in the west to
Whites Bay in the east and out to two nautical miles from shore (Figure 4).
The boundary is larger than the existing area, extends further seaward into Cook Strait some
two nautical miles from all landmarks, and encompasses the additional areas of Crosilles
Harbour to west D’Urville, and Port Underwood, Robin Hood Bay, Whites Bay and the
southern limit at the Wairau Bar.
The proposed boundary reflects the existing MDC coastal boundary. This will assist with
fishery management initiatives in the future, and supports ecosystem management approaches
that will require integrated management with the Resource Management Act.
None of the additional areas within the larger boundary other than west D’Urville are
currently included in the blue cod relative biomass surveys. It is not possible to comment
whether there is a decline of blue cod requiring inclusion of these areas within the proposed
regulatory changes. The 2004 and 2007 survey data for west D’Urville Island suggest that the
local blue cod population is viable. Nevertheless, these outer lying areas are equally
vulnerable to displacement in effort from fishers seeking locations that are more productive.
Table 1 describes risk associated with the proposed option and identifies mitigation measures.
60
Table 1. Identification of risks and mitigating measures.
Risk
Mitigating measure(s)
Closed areas increase
migration
and
concentration of fishing
pressure in open areas
causing
depletion
impacts to these areas.
Ensure temporary closures are only closed for as long as
necessary.
Implement complimentary measures such as reduction of the
daily bag limit and no accumulation of bag limits for multi-day
trips to reduce extraction.
Implement complimentary measures to reduce mortality of
juveniles such as no high grading.
Fishers’ compliance with Basing measures on feedback from consultation should
new measures is low
improve the community buy-in and improve compliance rates.
Implementing a communication plan will improve
understanding of changes to regulations, improve awareness of
issues facing the fishery, and identify differences in daily bag
limit and minimum legal size between areas. Inform key
stakeholders such as fishers, tackle retailers and the tourist
sector.
Update notice boards, website and pamphlets with changes to
regulations.
Provide clear guidance for the definition of the minimum gape
size for size 6/0 and 10/0 hook measures. Liaise with fishing
retailers, industry and fishing associations to ensure measure is
widely understood and hooks available in Marlborough
Sounds Area.
Review of survey data
for ending or continuing
closure
leads
to
disagreement
between
stakeholders for which
action is appropriate
Set clear objectives for recovery based upon science advice
and community wishes.
Blue cod populations
rebuild but are quickly
re-depleted in a ‘gold
rush’ soon after fishery is
re-opened.
The proposed changes to bag limits and other measures will
lower existing extraction of blue cod and incidental mortality.
Part of the process to reopen fishery should review the success
of proposed measures, and consider the whether they are
sufficient to ensure sustainable harvest levels.
Ensure review of data is part of a transparent process including
a consultation process.
Blue cod populations do Review survey data in 2011 and consider longer closure
not rebuild in the inner period.
areas by 2011.
It may be necessary to decrease the periodicity of the relative
biomass survey from four years and increase review period.
Serial depletion extends Review available data from fishing sectors and consider
to other areas of the appropriate actions with SoundFish and through Challenger
Marlborough Sounds
Fin Fish Plan.
61
The proposed input control measures for the recreational fishery will require amendment of
the existing regulations for bag limits (reduction from 3 blue cod to 2, and 6 per boat),
possession of only one day’s bag limit on multi day trips, high-grading and landing
conditions for blue cod (whole or gutted) fishing. Other proposed measures do not overlap
with existing regulations.
Implementation and review
The new measures are planned to commence from 1 October 2008. This will follow a
programme of communications to ensure all fishers and the local community are aware of
changes to recreational fishing regulations for the Marlborough Sounds.
Recreational fishers are expected to be aware of the fishing regulations. MFish compliance
activities include informing recreational users and providing information material on relevant
rules. Operational compliance activities include initiatives to raise awareness of the rules, as
well as enforcement activities including patrols, inspections, infringement notices and
prosecution of more serious offences.
To maximise voluntary compliance MFish will need to conduct an ongoing education
campaign to provide information and advice to promote high levels of understanding and
acceptance of the regulatory changes. Signage and pamphlets specific for the Marlborough
Sounds Area, along with public advertisements and media releases will be commence
following a final decision.
To create an effective deterrent in the fishery will require a number of tools including
enforcement and legislative deterrents, land and at-sea monitoring, and inspections by
Fishery Officers.
Legislation deterrents come through a structured penalty regime for offences with ramped
infringement fines for breaches of daily bag limits ($250 fine applicable for taking/possession
up to less than twice the daily bag limit and a $500 fine for taking/possession over twice the
daily bag limit). Court proceedings with a maximum penalty of $20,000 with resultant
forfeiture upon conviction of any property used in the commission of the offence apply for a
breach where more than three times the daily bag limit is taken.
Maintaining an effective presence of Fishery Officers within the Marlborough Sounds Area
will be important for providing an effective deterrent for offences, as well as meeting the
community expectations of the enforcement of rules and response to reports of possible
breaches. This will be particularly challenging given the large geographic area policed, the
relative unfettered access and the large recreational fishing community who use the
Marlborough Sounds resource. Some fisheries offences such as high-grading are also difficult
to detect. MFish has not yet determined the cost of compliance for the proposed regulatory
changes.
A review of the proposed closures and effectiveness of input controls would take place in
2011 to coincide with next survey. However, there is uncertainty over how long a temporary
area closure would be required. Long Island and Tonga Island marine reserves have both
shown signs of recovery within a few years of fishing cessation. The geography and low base
of juvenile and adult fish within the worst depleted areas of the Marlborough Sounds may
62
require a longer period for populations to recover.
Longer term management, review of any implemented proposals, research and future
ecosystem approaches to management will be addressed through the Challenger Fin Fish
Inshore Plan (CIFF). Development of this plan recently commenced in December 2007.
Should temporary closure of areas of the fishery be implemented, it is proposed that the CIFF
would assume responsibility for setting the success criteria to determine when and how a
temporary closure would be re-opened. Prior to re-opening a closed fishery it will also be
necessary for the CIFF to consider the necessity for any further regulation to ensure the
longer term sustainability of the fishery is maintained. It is envisaged that the CIFF will work
closely with community groups such as SoundFish to continue this longer term management
work.
MFish will review the requirement for more frequent surveys of blue cod and extending the
survey strata to include areas such as Port Underwood. From 2007 these surveys are
scheduled to be repeated on a 4 year cycle in keeping with surveys in other management
areas. The next blue cod survey is scheduled for 2011.
Consultation
Pre-consultation on the proposal set out in the IPP has been undertaken with the SoundFish.
This multi stakeholder group represents a wide section of the Marlborough Sounds fishers
and community: including Maori, commercial and recreational. This pre-consultation has
helped to shape the options presented here and includes two options put forward by
SoundFish as additional and independent submissions.
63
INITIAL POSITION PAPER– LOCAL DEPLETION OF
HAPUKU/ BASS IN THE CENTRAL FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT AREA
Central Fisheries Management Area (CFMA)
Figure 1: Map showing the Central Fisheries Management Area (CFMA), which
encompasses Hapuku/Bass Quota Management Areas HPB 2 and HPB 8, and the inshore
statistical areas.
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) is proposing changes to the rules that manage
recreational take of hāpuku/bass in the Central Fisheries Management Area (CFMA;
refer Figure 1).
2
The relevant statutory considerations are set out in the Fisheries Act 1996 and the
Fisheries (Central Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986. Regulation 3A of the
regulations sets out the limits applying to the taking of häpuku/bass. Currently the
regulation allows a recreational fisher to take a combined maximum daily bag limit of
five häpuka/bass and kingfish
3
MFish has received multiple reports from non-commercial (ie, recreational and
customary) fishing stakeholders of localised depletion of hāpuku/bass in the CFMA.
Non-commercial stakeholders state the localised depletion is reducing noncommercial fishing values. Specifically, they report a decline in non-commercial
häpuku/bass catch rates and in the size ranges of hāpuku/bass being caught in popular
64
non-commercial fishing areas in Poverty Bay, Hawke Bay, and the Wairarapa in HPB
2, and in unspecified areas in HPB 8.
4
The reports from non-commercial stakeholders cite increased recreational fishing as
causing the localised depletion. However, reports differ in the nature of the increase
in effort. Some reports cite an “across the board” increase in recreational fishing as
the problem whilst others cite increased fishing by recreational charter vessels only.
5
MFish has no independent information to confirm reports of localised depletion in
popular non-commercial fishing areas in the CFMA. MFish notes the following
biological characteristics of häpuku/bass make the species vulnerable to localised
depletion: slow-growth; long-life; late age at sexual maturity; and, demonstrate a high
level of residency around favoured marine features.
6
MFish has only limited information on recreational fishing for häpuku/bass in the
CFMA and that information is not fine-scale enough to confirm reports of increased
recreational fishing in popular non-commercial fishing areas.
7
Although information is limited, MFish believes consideration of management
intervention is appropriate because the problem is principally internal to the
recreational sector; nearly all the anecdotal information on the problem and its cause
has been provided by recreational fishers, and the cause identified is increased
recreational effort.
8
This paper puts forward four management options for discussion:
¾ Option 1, the status quo, would not change the management of häpuku/bass but
would continue to monitor available information on the fishery
¾ Option 2 would introduce a maximum daily bag limit of three hāpuku/bass per
person in the CFMA for recreational fishers
¾ Option 3 would introduce a maximum boat limit of 15 hāpuku/bass per vessel in
the CFMA for recreational fishers
¾ Option 4 would introduce an accumulation limit of one daily bag limit of
hāpuku/bass per person in the CFMA for recreational fishers.
9
At this time, and based on the best available information, MFish considers Option 2
the most effective option to address the reported localised depletion. Option 2 reduces
the maximum fishing potential of every recreational fisher targeting hāpuku/bass in
the CFMA and is therefore more likely to reduce the amount of häpuku/bass harvested
by recreational fishers in popular non-commercial fishing areas. Unlike Options 3
and 4, the effectiveness of Option 2 is not reliant on the accuracy of information about
the nature of the increased recreational fishing effort.
10
MFish recognises, however, that information on this issue is limited and largely
anecdotal. MFish invites stakeholders to provide additional information to inform the
decision making. In particular, MFish invites information on:
a)
the locations of areas where localised depletion of hāpuku/bass is occurring
within the CFMA
65
11
b)
the cause of localised depletion in popular non-commercial häpuku/bass
fishing areas
c)
how recreational effort in popular non-commercial häpuku/bass fishing areas
has changed through time
d)
recreational values associated with häpuku/bass fishing and their relative
importance
e)
The ‘value-costs’ and ‘value-benefits’ of the options presented.
None of the options presented would negatively impact on the values of Tangata/Tiaki
Kaitiaki and customary fishers, commercial quota owners and fishers, or
environmental stakeholders. Options 2, 3 and 4 may benefit these stakeholders by
reducing overall risk to the sustainability of HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishstocks.
Summary of Options
12
This paper discusses four management options. Options 2, 3 and 4 are not discrete
options; just one or any combination of these options could be adopted.
Option 1: Status quo
13
Option 1 would not change the management of häpuku/bass in the CFMA. MFish
would continue to monitor, and consider new, fishery information as it became
available.
14
The Fisheries (Central Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986 allow a recreational
fisher in the CFMA to take a combined daily bag limit of five häpuku/bass and
kingfish per person, with no more than three kingfish.
Option 2: Introduce a recreational daily bag limit of three hāpuku/bass
15
Under Option 2, an amendment would be made to Section 3A of the Fisheries
(Central Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986 limiting recreational fishers to a
daily bag limit of three hāpuku/bass per person.
16
The amendment would reduce the maximum number of häpuku/bass able to be taken
per day by a recreational fisher in the CFMA from five to three. The amendment
would not change the existing combined daily bag limit of five häpuku/bass and
kingfish per person, or the daily bag limit of three kingfish per person.
Option 3: Introduce a recreational boat limit of 15 hāpuku/bass per
vessel.
17
Under Option 3, an amendment would be made to Section 3A of the Fisheries
(Central Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986 limiting the number of hāpuku/bass
able to be possessed to 15 per vessel for recreational fishers.
18
On its own, Option 3 would reduce the number of häpuku/bass able to be taken by
recreational fishers on vessels carrying four or more fishers. It would not change the
66
number of häpuku/bass able to be taken by recreational fishers on vessels carrying
three or less fishers.
19
If the maximum daily bag limit of hāpuku/bass is reduced to three (that is, if Options
2 and 3 are used together), the amendment would reduce the number of häpuku/bass
able to be taken by recreational fishers on vessels carrying six or more fishers. It
would not change the number of häpuku/bass able to be taken by recreational fishers
on vessels carrying five or less fishers.
Option 4: Introduce an accumulation limit of one daily bag limit of
hāpuku/bass
20
Under Option 4, an amendment would be made to Section 3A of the Fisheries
(Central Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986 limiting the amount of hāpuku/bass
recreational fishers can accumulate to one daily bag per person in the CFMA.
21
The amendment would limit the number of häpuku/bass able to be possessed by any
recreational fisher in the CFMA at any time to one daily bag limit of häpuku/bass
(that is, five hāpuku/bass if the bag limit is unchanged and three hāpuku/bass if
Option 2 is adopted).
22
The amendment would not change the existing combined daily bag limit of five
häpuku/bass and kingfish per person, or the daily bag limit of three kingfish per
person.
Rationale for Management Options
The Management Problem
23
MFish has received multiple reports from non-commercial fishing stakeholders of
localised depletion of hāpuku/bass in the CFMA.
24
The first reports in 2005 related solely to the Ranfurly Banks (in statistical area 11 –
refer figure 1). Subsequent reports in 2006 and 2007 related to Ranfurly Banks and
popular non-commercial areas off Gisborne (statistical areas 12 and 13), in Hawke
Bay (statistical area 13), off the Wairarapa coast (statistical areas 14 and 15) and in
non-specific areas in HPB 8.
Risk to the sustainability of the HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishstocks
25
MFish has no independent information to verify the reports of localised depletion.
The biological characteristics of häpuku/bass make the species vulnerable to localised
depletion. Häpuku/bass are slow-growing and long-lived (approximately 60 years),
have a late age-at-maturity and demonstrate strong site fidelity (in tagging studies,
large numbers of tagged hapuku/bass are re-captured at, or near, the initial tagging
site). Studies also show hāpuku/bass have an annual spawning season but little is
currently known about the location of spawning grounds or nursery areas.
26
Spreading or “serial” localised depletion can increase risks to fishstock sustainability.
Information on the status of häpuku/bass fishstocks is limited. A maximum constant
yield (MCY) of 1330 tonnes has been estimated for hāpuku/bass fishstocks HPB 1-3
67
and 6-10 combined. Recent combined catches across these fisheries are less than
1330 tonnes and are considered sustainable. Monitored fishery information in HPB 2
and HPB 8 (commercial catches against TACC) does not suggest notable changes in
häpuku/bass abundance in either quota management area as a whole.
Risk to the value achieved by HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishery stakeholders
27
Recreational and customary fishers have stated that localised depletion is reducing the
value of customary and recreational fishing experiences. Specifically, recreational
and customary stakeholders note a decline in their hapuku/bass catch rates and in the
size ranges of hāpuku/bass being caught.
28
MFish has no independent or quantitative information to verify whether or not
recreational or customary fishing values have declined in recent years. However,
anecdotal information suggesting declining values has been consistent, has derived
from multiple sources (including individuals, recreational charter fishers, recreational
fishing club representatives, MFish recreational forums, and hapu representatives) and
has been provided over a number of years (2005 to present).
29
MFish has not received any reports from commercial fishers expressing concern about
declining commercial values in HPB 2 or HPB 8. Indicators of the commercial value
of häpuku/bass include (but are not limited to) commercial landings against Total
Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC), and the value of Annual Catch Entitlement
(ACE) or quota. The TACC for HPB 2 is set at 266 tonnes. The average ACE trading
price per tonne of HPB 2 has increased from $1,585 to $1,807 over the same period.
The average ACE trading price per tonne of HPB 8 has increased from $748 to $1,188
over the same period.
Risk to the credible management of häpuku/bass fisheries in the CFMA
30
Credible fisheries management is management that is clearly understood by the
fishery stakeholders and achieves the desired result of ensuring maximum value is
obtained through the sustainable use of the HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishstocks in the long
term.
31
Reports from non-commercial stakeholders indicate there may be growing
dissatisfaction with the current management of recreational häpuku/bass fisheries in
the CFMA.
Rationale for Management Options
32
MFish believes consideration of management intervention is appropriate despite the
absence of independent information to verify the reported localised depletion. This is
because the problem is principally internal to the recreational sector; that is, nearly all
the anecdotal information on the problem and its cause has been provided by
recreational sector participants, and the cause identified is increased recreational
effort.
33
MFish considers management intervention is justified if consultation feedback from
CFMA stakeholders:
68
¾ reveals widespread agreement among non-commercial fishers that localised
depletion is occurring in popular non-commercial fishing areas;
¾ reveals widespread agreement among non-commercial fishers that localised
depletion is caused by increased recreational fishing effort in these areas;
¾ indicates management intervention would increase the overall value of the noncommercial hapuku/bass fishery in the CFMA; and
¾ other fishery stakeholders would not be negatively impacted by the chosen
management intervention.
Rationale for Option 1: Status quo
34
Fine-scale information on hapuku/bass abundance is limited and does not enable
independent verification that localised depletion is occurring within the CFMA. As
noted above, available fishery information is limited but does not suggest a
sustainability problem in HPB 2 or HPB 8. Research to develop a monitoring tool to
better assess the status of hāpuku/bass fish stocks around New Zealand is being
commissioned by MFish. The results of this research will be available to MFish in
2009.
35
Information on recreational fishing effort distribution and trends is also limited and
does not enable verification of reports that recreational fishing effort is increasing in
popular hapuku/bass fishing spots in the CFMA. A telephone diary survey to update
recreational harvest estimates is planned for 2009/10. Information on the extent of
recreational charter boat fishing effort may also become available in the future
through the ‘activity and catch reporting for recreational charter vessels’ proposal,
which formed part of the November 2007 Cabinet decision on the Shared Fisheries
Policy. Non-commercial stakeholders are likely to be consulted on this proposal in
2008.
36
The recreational fishing community is both diverse and dispersed. Current anecdotal
reports of localised depletion are consistent and derived from a variety of sources but
may not reflect the perspective of the wider recreational fishing community.
37
Retaining the existing management framework is therefore a realistic management
option. Management intervention could be considered again in the future when more
information is available or as part of a fisheries plan.
Rationale for Option 2: Introduce a daily bag limit of 3 häpuku/bass per person
38
The reports provided by non-commercial fishers consistently cite an increase in
recreational fishing effort as the primary cause of localised depletion in popular noncommercial fishing areas. The reports note an increase in membership of fishing
clubs, increased traffic across club boat ramps and increased sales of boats and fishing
equipment as evidence of a general increase in fishing effort in the CFMA.
39
The most commonly used tool to constrain recreational catch is the recreational daily
bag limit. Introducing a hāpuku/bass-specific daily bag limit of three fish per day in
the CFMA is therefore a realistic management option. The hāpuku/bass-specific daily
69
bag limit would reduce the maximum potential catch of every recreational fisher in
popular non-commercial fishing areas and the CFMA as a whole.
40
The number three was chosen primarily based on reports from recreational fishermen
indicating three hāpuku/bass is a credible daily bag limit given the comparatively
large size (hāpuku/bass are large and most landed fish weigh 10 and 40 kgs or more),
the popularity of hāpuku/bass and the current concerns about localised depletion.
Three is also consistent with the current daily bag limit applying to kingfish and
therefore is likely to be easy to remember.
Rationale for Option 3: Introduce a boat limit of 15 häpuku/bass per vessel
41
Some reports provided by non-commercial fishers have cited increased recreational
charter fishing effort as the principal cause of localised depletion in popular noncommercial fishing areas.
42
Information on recreational charter fishing effort in the CFMA is limited. Recent
research identifies hāpuku/bass as the third most frequently targeted species by charter
vessels (after snapper and kingfish), and suggests the physical number of recreational
charter vessels has increased in the CFMA over the period 1997-98 to 2006.
However, there is no information to determine if charter fishing effort has increased at
a slower rate, the same rate, or a faster rate than recreational effort generally. Nor is it
possible to determine the proportion of total recreational catch of hāpuku/bass in the
CFMA taken by recreational fishers on charter vessels.
43
Boat limits are a tool that provides for some targeting of catch constraints to specific
groups of fishers. Introducing a boat limit is therefore a realistic management option,
if the best available anecdotal information indicates targeted catch constraints are
warranted. Some reports from recreational fishers suggest fishers on charter vessels
(and large private recreational vessels) may take more fish because these vessels tend
to carry large groups of fishers, have larger holds to transport catch, go out more
regularly, have experienced skippers that know where the fish can be found, and are
able to fish in rougher weather.
44
A boat limit applies to all vessels, not just charter vessels. At this time, MFish is not
aware of any reason why charter vessels carrying multiple fishers should be treated
differently to private vessels carrying multiple fishers. The proposed boat limit would
affect recreational fishers on vessels carrying four or more passengers if the maximum
daily bag limit remains at five, and on vessels carrying six or more passengers if the
maximum daily bag limit is reduced to three.
45
The number fifteen was chosen primarily based on the reports from recreational
fishers suggesting 15 as a credible boat limit for hāpuku/bass in the CFMA.
Rationale for Option 4: Introduce an accumulation limit of one daily bag limit of
häpuku/bass
46
Hāpuku/bass is a popular target species among recreational fishers and advances in
fishing technology enable even relatively inexperienced fishers to accurately and
repetitively locate specific fishing spots. Some reports from non-commercial
stakeholders refer to fishers returning to the same popular non-commercial fishing
70
areas repetitively to target hāpuku/bass.
Non-commercial stakeholders note
hāpuku/bass are large fish and a bag limit “goes a long way”. They have expressed
particular concern about large landings of hāpuku/bass from vessels involved in multiday fishing trips.
47
Information on accumulation of hāpuku/bass by individual recreational fishers is
limited and MFish has no information on the number of fishers that currently possess
more than a bag limit (five) of hāpuku/bass at any one time.
48
Although accumulation limits apply to all recreational fishers equally, they are more
likely to affect (constrain the activity of) fishers on multi-day fishing trips and fishers
that fish for hāpuku/bass frequently and regularly take the maximum bag limit.
49
The proposed accumulation limit is one daily bag limit of häpuku/bass. The number
one was chosen primarily based on the reports from recreational fishers suggesting
one bag limit is credible given the comparatively large size and popularity of
hāpuku/bass and the current concerns about localised depletion.
Other Management Options Looked At
Reducing commercial catch
50
None of the reports from non-commercial stakeholders has cited commercial fishing
as a cause of localised depletion of hāpuku/bass in popular non-commercial fishing
areas.
51
Some overlap does occur between commercial and non-commercial fishers taking
hāpuku/bass. Commercial catch of hāpuku/bass in FMA 2 is a target and by-catch
species in the dahn line, bottom long line and bottom trawl fisheries, whereas
hāpuku/bass in FMA 8 is predominantly a by-catch species in the bottom long line
and bottom trawl fisheries. The TACC for HPB 2 is 266 tonnes. The commercial
catch trend in HPB 2 has remained relatively constant since 2001/02, with catches
fluctuating between 226 and 281 tonnes. The TACC for HPB 8 is 80 tonnes. The
commercial catch trend in HPB 8 has also remained relatively constant since 2001/02,
with catches fluctuating between 62 and 80 tonnes.
52
Available commercial catch data is not detailed enough to provide analysis of
hāpuku/bass catches taken in, or near, popular non-commercial fishing areas 15, but
estimated commercial catches of hāpuku/bass for most statistical areas in the CFMA
appear to be relatively constant or declining since 2001/02 fishing years with the
exception of statistical areas 13, 40 and 41. Hāpuku/bass catch in statistical area 13
increased in 2005/06 and 2006/07, and appears to be linked to hāpuku/bass bycatch in
the bluenose (BNS 2) target fishery. 16 Hāpuku/bass catches in statistical areas 40 and
41 increased in 2002/03 and 2004/05, but have since reduced in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
15
The introduction of new commercial catch effort reporting forms for trawl and lining fishing methods on 1
October 2007, will provide more fine scale information on the location of fishing effort, particularly latitude and
longitude data. In the future this information may enable more precise analysis of the location of commercial
fishing effort, and assist with determining if commercial fishing effort is a cause of localised depletion for other
fish stocks
16
The deemed value for BNS 2 was increased from 1 October 2007.
71
53
The absence of information indicating a causal link between the reported localised
depletion in popular non-commercial hāpuku/bass fishing areas and commercial
fishing, and the absence of information indicating a sustainability concern, means
reducing commercial catch is not considered a realistic option.
54
As noted above, research to develop a monitoring tool to better assess the status of
hāpuku/bass fish stocks around New Zealand is being commissioned by MFish. The
results of this research will be available to MFish in 2009.
Closed seasons in hāpuku/bass spawning areas
55
Some stakeholders have suggested closing hāpuku/bass spawning areas during
spawning season.
56
Research shows hāpuku/bass do have an annual spawning season (this varies
considerably between the North and South Islands) but little information is currently
known about the location of spawning grounds or nursery areas for hāpuku/bass.
Consequently, the introduction of closed seasons in hāpuku/bass spawning areas is not
a realistic option at this time.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1: Retain the status quo
57
Option 1 retains the existing management framework for hāpuku/bass in the CFMA.
58
Information on the problem and its cause is limited and anecdotal. Retaining the
existing management framework would therefore be appropriate if consultation
feedback from CFMA stakeholders:
¾ reveals a lack of widespread agreement among non-commercial fishers that
localised depletion is occurring in popular non-commercial fishing areas in the
CFMA;
¾ reveals a lack of widespread agreement among non-commercial fishers that
localised depletion is caused by increased recreational fishing effort in these areas;
¾ indicates management intervention would not increase the overall value of the
non-commercial hapuku/bass fishery in the CFMA; or if
¾ new information would shortly be available that would better inform decisionmaking on addressing reported localised depletion in the CFMA.
Benefits
59
Of the three options presented, Option 1 has the lowest implementation cost (nil
additional costs) as no change to the management framework would result.
60
Under Option 1, no additional constraints on recreational harvest of hāpuku/bass
would apply. If localised depletion is limited to only a few areas, the value-benefit to
recreational fishers of being able to take up to five häpuku/bass daily may exceed the
72
value-benefit of reducing maximum daily take to improve recreational fishing success
in areas currently experiencing localised depletion.
61
Option 1 would also allow new information to be considered. New information on
hāpuku/bass fisheries that is likely to become available in the next few years includes:
¾ research to identify an improved monitoring tool for hāpuku/bass fishstocks due to
be reported in 2009
¾ a telephone diary survey to estimate recreational harvest is planned for 2009/10
¾ finer-scale information on commercial catch distribution from new catch reporting
forms operating from 2007/08
¾ potential information on the extent of recreational charter boat fishing effort (may
become available through ‘activity and catch reporting for recreational charter
vessels’ – a proposal which formed part of the November 2007 Cabinet decision
on the Shared Fisheries Policy and is likely to be consulted on in March 2008).
62
MFish notes, this new information will not provide verification of reported localised
depletion. Nor will it necessarily provide information on changing recreational
harvest over time because, as illustrated in the table below, existing estimates of
recreational catch in HPB 2 and HPB 8 are highly uncertain and widely variable.
Table 1: Recreational harvest estimates from recreational surveys.
1992-3
1993-4
1996
1999-00
FMA 2
45-85 tonnes
5-10 tonnes
75-125 tonnes
307-608 tonnes
FMA 8
5-10 tonnes
No data
No data
6-32 tonnes
Costs
63
Option 1 poses the greatest risk to non-commercial values and also to the medium to
long-term sustainability of the HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishstocks (no short-term risk to
sustainability has been identified).
64
Retaining the status quo would not reduce or resolve reported localised depletion of
hāpuku/bass in popular non-commercial fishing areas in the CFMA. If localised
depletion is occurring across a number of popular non-commercial fishing areas in the
CFMA, the value-benefit to recreational fishers of reducing maximum daily take to
improve recreational fishing success in areas experiencing localised depletion is likely
to exceed the value-benefit of being able to take up to five häpuku/bass daily.
65
In the medium to long-term, localised depletion may spread to other areas as fishers
seeking better catch rates relocate their fishing effort to new areas. For slow-growing
73
species that show a high level of residency to particular areas like häpuku/bass, serial
localised depletion can increase risks to the sustainability of a stock.
66
Option 1 may not be credible to non-commercial fishers experiencing localised
depletion. Some consider a maximum allowable catch of five hāpuku/bass to be
excessive given the size of the fish, its popularity among non-commercial fishers and
its vulnerability to localised depletion.
Option 2: Introduce a daily bag limit of three hāpuku/bass per person
67
Introducing a daily bag limit of three hāpuku/bass per person would reduce the
maximum quantity of hāpuku/bass a recreational fisher is able to take in the CFMA
from five to three per day.
68
Introducing a reduced daily bag limit is appropriate if consultation feedback from
CFMA stakeholders:
•
reveals widespread agreement among non-commercial fishers that localised
depletion is occurring in popular non-commercial fishing areas in the CFMA;
•
reveals widespread agreement among non-commercial fishers that localised
depletion is caused by increased recreational fishing effort in these areas;
•
indicates the increase in recreational fishing effort is ‘across the board’ or that the
nature of the increasing recreational fishing effort is unknown; and
•
indicates management intervention would increase the overall value of the noncommercial hapuku/bass fishery in the CFMA.
Benefits
69
Of the three options, Option 2 is likely to be the most effective at reducing or
resolving reported localised depletion in popular non-commercial fishing areas in the
short to medium-term. (MFish notes the effectiveness of a reduced bag limit in the
medium to long-term would be dependent on the amount of growth in recreational
fishing effort over the period.)
70
Introducing a hāpuku/bass-specific daily bag limit potentially reduces the total
number of hāpuku/bass taken by recreational fishers in the short to medium-term. The
quantum reduction in recreational catch of hāpuku/bass achieved by reducing the
daily bag limit is unknown. Information on recreational harvest of hāpuku/bass in the
CFMA is uncertain and MFish has no current information on the proportion of fishing
events that occur where a fisher takes more than three hāpuku/bass.
71
The daily bag limit would apply to every recreational fisher targeting hāpuku/bass in
the CFMA. Therefore, unlike a boat limit (Option 3), the effectiveness of the tool is
not as reliant on the correctness of assumptions about the nature of the increase in
recreational fishing effort.
74
72
If localised depletion is occurring across a number of popular non-commercial fishing
areas in the CFMA, the value-benefit to recreational fishers of reducing the maximum
daily bag limit to improve recreational fishing success in areas experiencing localised
depletion is likely to exceed the value-benefit of being able to take up to five
häpuku/bass daily.
73
Best available information at this time indicates Option 2 is also the most credible
option. Daily bag limits are familiar to, and widely understood and accepted by noncommercial stakeholders as a tool to manage recreational harvest. Bag limits restrict
the maximum fishing potential of all individual recreational fishers equally.
Furthermore, existing reports from stakeholder suggest a bag limit of three
hāpuku/bass is sensible given the large size of hāpuku/bass.
74
MFish notes that its compliance strategy for the HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishstocks in the
long term are to maximise voluntary compliance and maintain an effective deterrent.
Although recreational fishers are expected to be aware of the fishing regulations in the
CFMA, compliance activity includes informing recreational users of the relevant rules
as well as enforcement activities including patrols, inspections and prosecution of
offences.
75
Introduction of a hāpuku/bass-specific bag limit would not affect the values of
Tangata/Tiaki Kaitiaki and customary fishers, commercial quota owners and fishers,
or environmental stakeholders. Option 2 may benefit these stakeholders by reducing
overall risk to the sustainability of HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishstocks and by reducing risks
to biological diversity in popular non-commercial areas over the short to mediumterm.
Costs
76
Reducing the daily bag limit may result in a net value loss to recreational fishers. If
localised depletion is limited to only a few areas, the value-benefit to recreational
fishers of being able to take up to five häpuku/bass daily would likely exceed the
value-benefit of reducing maximum daily take to improve recreational fishing success
in areas currently experiencing localised depletion.
77
Option 2 will result in administrative costs to fulfil regulatory amendments and
education costs to inform non-commercial stakeholders of the new regulation. The
education costs would include:
•
the cost of updating published recreation rules information (eg, the ‘Recreational
Fisher’s Handbook’) and information boards within the CFMA
•
education activities to inform fishers of the new rule.
Option 3: Introduce a boat limit of 15 hāpuku/bass per vessel
78
Introducing a boat limit of 15 hāpuku/bass would limit the maximum quantity of
hāpuku/bass able to be possessed per vessel in the CFMA to 15.
79
Introducing a boat limit is appropriate if consultation feedback from CFMA
stakeholders:
75
•
reveals widespread agreement among non-commercial fishers that localised
depletion is occurring in popular non-commercial fishing areas in the CFMA;
•
reveals widespread agreement among non-commercial fishers that localised
depletion is caused by increased recreational fishing effort in these areas;
•
reveals widespread agreement among recreational fishers that distinguishing
between fishers on small vessels and fishers on large vessels is credible; and
•
indicates management intervention would increase the overall value of the noncommercial hapuku/bass fishery in the CFMA.
Benefits
80
The introduction of a boat limit would potentially reduce the number of hāpuku/bass
taken by vessels carrying multiple recreational fishers (ie, four or more fishers if the
bag limit of five is retained and six or more fishers if the bag limit is reduced to three)
on any trip. If large recreational and charter vessels are a principal harvester of
hāpuku/bass in popular non-commercial fishing areas, introducing a boat limit may
reduce or resolve reported localised depletion of hāpuku/bass in popular noncommercial fishing areas in the short-medium term.
81
MFish is unable to quantify the total reduction in annual catch of hāpuku/bass that
may occur from introducing the boat limit. There is no research information available
to MFish on the ratio of recreational fishers to large recreational or charter vessels
targeting hāpuku/bass in FMA 2 and 8.
82
Introduction of a hāpuku/bass boat limit would not affect the values of Tangata/Tiaki
Kaitiaki and customary fishers, commercial quota owners and fishers, or
environmental stakeholders. Options 3 may benefit these stakeholders by reducing
overall risk to the sustainability of HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishstocks and by reducing risks
to biological diversity in popular non-commercial areas over the short to mediumterm.
Costs
83
On its own, Option 3 would only be effective if vessels carrying multiple fishers are
responsible for a significant proportion of the hāpuku/bass catch. MFish has no
information to confirm whether this is the case therefore Option 3 is a riskier approach
to resolving reported localised depletion in these areas than Option 2, which seeks to
reduce the maximum harvest potential of all fishers. As noted above, new
information on the extent of recreational charter boat fishing effort may become
available in the future through the ‘activity and catch reporting for recreational charter
vessels’ proposal, which is likely to go out for consultation in March 2008.
84
Option 3 would only be credible if vessels carrying multiple fishers are harvesting
appreciably more hāpuku/bass per fisher per fishing trip than other recreational
fishing participants. MFish has no information to verify that this is the case, therefore
boat limits may be seen as discriminatory (ie, unjustifiably targeting fishers that use
charter vessels and those that fish in groups off large vessels).
76
85
Option 3 would result in administrative costs. The costs are likely to be higher than
Option 2 because boat limits as a management tool are not familiar to, or widely
understood by, recreational fishers. A more intensive education and information
programme would therefore be required to ensure fishers understood the tool and how
it operated.
86
Option 3 potentially impacts on the recreational values of fishers in other FMA’s by
constraining the activity of fishers travelling into the CFMA to fish. Whilst in the
CFMA, vessels cannot exceed 15 hāpuku/bass even if the hāpuku/bass were taken
from the neighbouring Fisheries Management Area where no boat limit applied.
87
MFish is unable to assess the impact introducing a boat limit would have on the value
of recreational fishing within the CFMA. The impact will depend on the extent of the
localised depletion problem, the amount of fishers and number of fishing trips that
would be constrained by the proposed boat limit and the effectiveness of the tool in
reducing or resolving reported localised depletion.
88
MFish notes boat limits are more difficult to enforce than bag limits. The
opportunities to intercept fishers not complying with boat limits are limited to on-thewater inspections and boat ramp inspections. Other interactions, for example vehicle
inspections, would be less effective as once the hāpuku/bass are removed from the
vessel, securing evidence of illegal activity would become more difficult.
Option 4: Introduce an accumulation limit of one daily bag limit of
hāpuku/ bass per person
89
Introducing an accumulation limit of one daily bag limit of hāpuku/bass would limit
the maximum quantity of hāpuku/bass able to be possessed in the CFMA.
90
Introducing an accumulation limit is appropriate if consultation feedback from CFMA
stakeholders:
•
reveals widespread agreement among non-commercial fishers that localised
depletion is occurring in popular non-commercial fishing areas in the CFMA;
•
reveals widespread agreement among non-commercial fishers that localised
depletion is caused by increased recreational fishing effort in these areas;
•
reveals widespread agreement among recreational fishers that targeting
accumulation of hāpuku/bass is credible; and
•
indicates management intervention would increase the overall value of the noncommercial hapuku/bass fishery in the CFMA.
Benefits
91
The introduction of an accumulation limit would potentially reduce the number of
hāpuku/bass taken by fishers on multi-day trips and fishers that fish often and
regularly accumulate more than one daily bag limit. If these fishers are a principal
harvester of hāpuku/bass in popular non-commercial fishing areas, introducing a boat
77
limit may resolve or reduce reported localised depletion of hāpuku/bass in popular
non-commercial fishing areas in the short-medium term.
92
MFish is unable to quantify the total reduction in annual catch of hāpuku/bass that
may occur from introducing an accumulation limit. MFish has no information to
determine how many recreational fishers regularly possess more than one daily bag
limit of hāpuku/bass in the CFMA.
93
Introduction of an accumulation limit would not affect the values of Tangata/Tiaki
Kaitiaki and customary fishers, commercial quota owners and fishers, or
environmental stakeholders. Option 4 may benefit these stakeholders by reducing
overall risk to the sustainability of HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishstocks and by reducing risks
to biological diversity in popular non-commercial areas over the short to mediumterm.
Costs
94
On its own, Option 4 would only be effective if a large proportion of recreational
fishers are regularly possessing more than one daily bag limit of hāpuku/bass. If this
is not the case, introducing an accumulation limit on its own would have limited effect
and is unlikely to significantly reduce or resolve reported localised depletion of
popular non-commercial fishing areas.
95
Option 4 would only be credible if recreational fishers are regularly possessing more
than one daily bag limit of hāpuku/bass. MFish has no information to verify that this
is the case.
96
The introduction of an accumulation limit may affect recreational values in other
FMA’s by constraining the activity of fishers travelling into the CFMA to target
hāpuku/bass. Whilst in the CFMA, recreational fishers on multi-day trips would be
unable to possess more than one daily bag limit of hāpuku/bass even if the fish were
taken in another fisheries management area.
97
MFish is unable to assess the impact introducing an accumulation limit would have on
the value of recreational fishing within the CFMA. The impact would depend on the
extent of the localised depletion problem, the amount of fishers and number of fishing
trips constrained by the proposed accumulation limit, and the effectiveness of the tool
in reducing or resolving reported localised depletion.
98
Option 4 has similar implementation costs to Option 3. Accumulation limits as a
management tool are not familiar to, or widely understood by, recreational fishers.
Therefore a targeted education and information programme would be required to
ensure fishers understood the tool and how it operated.
Conclusion
99
Based on the best available information at this time, MFish considers Option 2 to be
the best approach to address reported localised depletion of hāpuku/bass in popular
non-commercial fishing areas in FMA 2 because:
78
a)
multiple reports of localised depletion in popular non-commercial fishing areas
have been received and the reports consistently cite increased recreational
fishing effort as the cause
b)
management intervention is justifiable despite the absence of independent
information to verify the reported localised depletion because the reported
problem and cause are principally internal to the recreational sector
c)
introducing a hāpuku/bass-specific bag limit would reduce risks to noncommercial values and to long-term sustainability of the CFMA hpuku/bass
fisheries
d)
introducing a hāpuku/bass-specific bag limit is more likely to be effective at
reducing or resolving reported localised depletion because it reduces the
maximum fishing potential of every hāpuku/bass fisher and is not reliant on
unverifiable assumptions about who in the recreational sector is causing the
problem
e)
reducing the daily bag limit would not negatively affect stakeholder values
associated with customary fishing, commercial fishing or the environmental
access in the short to medium term; and
f)
daily bag limits are widely understood and accepted by recreational
stakeholders
100
At this time, MFish considers more information would be needed about the valuecosts and value-benefits of Options 3 and 4 before they could be adopted.
101
MFish recognises the information available to inform decision making is limited.
MFish therefore invites stakeholders to provide additional information. In particular,
MFish invites information on:
a)
the locations of areas where localised depletion of hāpuku/bass is occurring
within the CFMA
b)
the cause of localised depletion in non-commercial
c)
how recreational effort in popular non-commercial häpuku/bass fishing areas
has changed through time.
d)
recreational values associated with häpuku/bass fishing and their relative
imporatnce
e)
The ‘value-costs’ and ‘value-benefits’ of:
i)
retaining the status quo of a maximum daily bag limit of five
hapuky/bass per person
ii)
reducing the maximum daily bag limit to three hāpuku/bass per person
iii)
introducing a boat limit of 15 hāpuku/bass per vessel
iv)
introducing an accumulation limit of one daily bag limit of hāpuku/bass
per person in the CFMA.
79
Statutory Considerations
102
In forming the options for addressing reported localised depletion of hāpuku/bass in
popular non-commercial fishing areas in the CFMA, the following statutory
considerations under the Fisheries Act 1996 have been taken into account.
a)
Section 5(a): A wide range of international obligations relate to fishing.
MFish is unaware of any international obligation that would be affected by the
management options proposed.
b)
Section 5(b): MFish considers the options are consistent with the provisions of
the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. None of the
options considered negatively impact availability of, or access to, hāpuku/bass
for customary purposes, and the impacts of each management option on
commercial stakeholders (including Maori commercial stakeholders) are fully
explored.
c)
Section 8: None of the management options proposed is contrary to the
purpose of the Act, which is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources
whilst ensuring sustainability. Options 2, 3 and 4 potentially improve
utilisation of the HPB 2 and 8 fish stocks by ensuring the reported value
achieved by non-commercial stakeholders of catching hāpuku/bass is ‘spread’
over more fishers in the short to medium-term.
d)
Section 9(a) and (b): Interactions between species have been identified (eg,
predator-prey relationships). It is unlikely any of the management options
proposed would materially affect these interactions.
e)
Section 9(c): None of the management options proposed would affect impacts
on habitats of particular significance for fisheries management. Recreational
fishing methods used to target hāpuku/bass are sensitive to the environment,
and will not change as a result of the options proposed.
f)
Section 10: Best available information is incorporated into this assessment of
management options, and uncertainties in information are identified and
discussed. The uncertainties in information make it difficult to accurately
quantify costs and benefits to sustainable utilisation; these uncertainties are
clearly identified and discussed. At this time, MFish considers further
information on the nature of the reported increase in recreational fishing effort
is required before Options 3 and 4 can be considered. MFish has included
these options for discussion with non-commercial stakeholders to provide an
opportunity for additional information to be provided if available.
g)
Section 11(1)(a): The effect of fishing activity on hāpuku/bass were
considered and discussed. Few permits for customary take have been issued
for hāpuku/bass, and commercial catch has remained relatively constant in the
last five years. Anecdotal evidence suggests an increase in recreational fishing
effort and an increase in small, large and charter vessel trips targeting
hāpuku/bass. The potential environmental impacts of hāpuku/bass fishing
were considered and discussed.
h)
Section 11(1)(b): The maximum daily bag limit for hāpuku/bass in the Central
Fisheries Management Area
80
i)
Section 11(1)(c): Little is known about the natural variability of hāpuku/bass.
Research shows hāpuku/bass do have an annual spawning season, but this
varies considerably between the North and South Islands. There is little
information on the location spawning grounds or nursery areas for
hāpuku/bass. The management options proposed are not likely to make the
HPB 2 and 8 fishstocks more or less vulnerable in terms of natural variability.
j)
Section 11(2)(a) and (b): There are no provisions applicable to the coastal
marine area known to exist in any policy statement or plan under the Resource
Management Act 1991, or any management strategy or plan under the
Conservation Act 1987 that are relevant to the management options proposed.
k)
Section 11(2)(c): The options are discussed in a manner consistent with the
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.
l)
Section 11(2A) (a and c): MFish is not aware of any provisions applicable to
the coastal marine area known to exist in any policy statement or plan under
the Resource Management Act 1991, or any management strategy or plan
under the Conservation Act 1987, which are relevant to reducing the
maximum daily bag limit for hāpuku/bass in FMA 2 and 8.
m)
Section 13: The TAC for hāpuku/bass would not be affected by the options in
the paper.
n)
Section 21(1)(a and b) and (4)(I and ii) and (5) statement: As the TACC,
customary and recreational allowances are not altered, there are no
implications for section 21 from these proposals.
o)
Section 297(1)(ii) prescribes the power of the Minister to regulate, authorise
or prohibit the taking or possession of fish, aquatic life or seaweed from any
area.
p)
Regulation 3A(4) of the Fisheries (Central Area Amateur Fishing)
Regulations 1986 sets out the maximum daily number of Hapuka/Bass that
may be taken or possessed by an individual on any one day.
81
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
Amend the Fisheries (Central Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986 for
Hapuku/bass in the Central Fisheries Management Area
Executive summary
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) is proposing changes to the rules that manage recreational
take of hāpuku/bass in the Central Fisheries Management Area (CFMA).
MFish has received multiple reports from non-commercial fishing stakeholders of localised
depletion of hāpuku/bass in popular non-commercial fishing areas. Stakeholders report that
the localised depletion is causing a decline in non-commercial fishing value.
MFish has no independent information to confirm localised depletion or declining noncommercial fishing values is occurring. Despite this, MFish believes consideration of
management intervention is appropriate because the problem is principally internal to the
recreational sector; nearly all the anecdotal information on the problem and its cause has been
provided by recreational fishers, and the cause identified is increased recreational effort.
MFish’s preferred approach to reduce or resolve reported localised depletion is to amend
Section 3A of the Fisheries (Central Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986 (the
regulations) to establish a maximum daily limit of three hāpuku/bass per person in the
CFMA.
Adequacy statement
This Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by the Ministry of Fisheries’
Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Committee and is considered adequate according to the
criteria agreed by Cabinet.
Management Problem and Status quo
MFish has received multiple reports from non-commercial fishing stakeholders of localised
depletion of hāpuku/bass in the CFMA. Non-commercial stakeholders report that the
localised depletion is causing a decline in non-commercial fishing value. Specifically, they
report a decline in non-commercial hāpuku/bass catch rates and in the size ranges of
hāpuku/bass caught in popular non-commercial fishing areas in Poverty Bay, Hawke Bay,
and the Wairarapa in HPB 2 and in unspecified areas in HPB 8.
The reports from non-commercial stakeholders cite increased recreational fishing effort as
causing the localised depletion. However, reports differ in the nature of the increase in effort.
Some reports cite an “across the board” increase in recreational fishing as the problem whilst
others cite increased fishing by recreational charter vessels only.
Status quo
Section 3A of the regulations allows a recreational fisher to take a combined daily bag limit
of five häpuku/bass and kingfish per person, including no more than three kingfish, in the
CFMA. Under the status quo, no additional constraints on recreational harvest of
hāpuku/bass would be applied.
82
Retaining the existing management framework is a realistic management option. MFish has
no independent information to confirm that localised depletion is occurring and causing a
decline in non-commercial fishing values. Retaining the status quo would allow time for new
information to be considered. New information on commercial catch distribution,
recreational harvest estimates, recreational charter fishing, and improved stock monitoring
tools may become available for hāpuku/bass in the CFMA over the next 1-4 years.
Retaining the status quo would not reduce or resolve reported localised depletion of
hāpuku/bass in popular non-commercial fishing areas. Retaining the status quo also poses the
greatest risk to non-commercial fishing values and to the long-term sustainability of the
HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishstocks.
Objectives
The key fisheries management objectives for the HPB 2 and HPB 8 stocks are:
¾ The sustainable utilisation of the hāpuku/bass resource
¾ The value of the hāpuku/bass resource is maximised
¾ Management of the hāpuku/bass resource is credible
Preferred option
MFish’s preferred option is to amend Section 3A of the regulations to establish a maximum
daily limit of three hāpuku/bass per person.
Introducing a hāpuku/bass-specific daily bag limit is likely to be the most effective tool to
reduce or resolve reported localised depletion in popular non commercial fishing areas in the
CFMA in the short to medium-term. The hāpuku/bass-specific daily bag limit would reduce
the maximum number of hāpuku/bass able to be taken by recreational fishers in the CFMA
from five to three. The bag limit would apply to every recreational fisher in the CFMA and
therefore its effectiveness would not be reliant on any assumptions about the nature of the
increase in recreational fishing effort.
Reducing the daily bag limit is credible as hāpuku/bass are large fish. Daily bag limits are
also familiar to, and widely understood and accepted by, non-commercial stakeholders as a
tool to manage recreational harvest. The daily bag limit would incur administrative costs to
fulfil regulatory amendments and education costs to inform non-commercial stakeholders of
the new regulation.
Reducing the daily bag limit would not negatively impact on the values of Tangata/Tiaki
Kaitiaki and customary fishers, commercial quota owners and fishers, or environmental
stakeholders. Reducing the daily bag limit may benefit these stakeholders by reducing
overall risk to the sustainability of HPB 2 and HPB 8 fishstocks.
Alternative options
MFish’s alternative options are to introduce a maximum boat limit and an accumulation limit
in the CFMA. MFish also considered, but did not proceed with, reducing the Total
Allowable Commercial Catches (TACCs) for HPB 2 and HPB 8, and introducing a closed
83
season for hāpuku/bass spawning in the CFMA.
Boat Limit
This option would amend Section 3A of the regulations to establish a maximum boat limit of
15 hāpuku/bass per vessel. Introducing a maximum boat limit would reduce the number of
hāpuku/bass able to be taken by recreational fishers on vessels carrying multiple fishers (four
or more fishers if the daily bag limit remains at five, and six or more fishers if the daily bag
limit is reduced to three).
Introducing the boat limit would only be effective if vessels carrying multiple fishers are
responsible for a significant proportion of the hāpuku/bass catch. MFish has no information
to confirm whether this is the case therefore a boat limit is a riskier approach to resolving
reported localised depletion in these areas than the preferred option, which seeks to reduce
the maximum harvest potential of all fishers.
A boat limit would have a higher implementation cost than the preferred option as
accumulation limits are not familiar to, or widely understood by, recreational fishers and a
more intensive education programme would be required. Boat limits are also more difficult
to enforce.
Accumulation Limit
This option would amend Section 3A of the regulations to establish an accumulation limit.
Introducing an accumulation limit would prevent recreational fishers from possessing more
than one daily bag limit of hāpuku/bass in the CFMA.
An accumulation limit would only be effective if a large proportion of recreational fishers are
regularly possessing more than one daily bag limit of hāpuku/bass in the CFMA. If this is not
the case, introducing an accumulation limit would have limited effect, and is unlikely to
significantly reduce or resolve reported localised depletion of popular non-commercial
fishing areas.
The accumulation limit would have a higher implementation cost than the preferred option as
accumulation limits are not familiar to, or widely understood by, recreational fishers and a
more intensive education programme would be required.
Reduce the TACCs for HPB 2 and HPB 8
The absence of information indicating a causal link between the reported localised depletion
in popular non-commercial hāpuku/bass fishing areas and commercial fishing, and the
absence of information indicating a sustainability concern means reducing commercial catch
limits is not considered a realistic option.
Closed season for hāpuku/bass spawning
Some stakeholders have suggested closing hāpuku/bass spawning areas during spawning
season. Research shows hāpuku/bass have an annual spawning season, but little information
is currently known on the location spawning grounds or nursery areas. Consequently,
introduction of closed seasons in hāpuku/bass spawning areas is not a realistic option at this
time.
84
Implementation and review
It is proposed amendments to the Central Area Amateur Regulations for hāpuku/bass in the
CFMA would come into force on 1 October 2008.
Non-commercial fishers will be notified of changes via MFish administered Regional
Recreational Forums, material posted on the MFish external website and through contact with
MFish Fisheries Surveillance Officers and Fisheries Operations staff. Enforcement of the
proposed options would be achieved through fishers’ interactions with MFish Compliance
Staff.
Consultation
MFish will consult with all persons and organisations considered by the Minister to have an
interest in options to resolve or reduce reported localised depletion of hāpuku/bass in popular
non-commercial fishing areas in the CFMA. This will include (but is not limited to) tangata
whenua, commercial and non-commercial fishing sectors, and environmental organisations.
Once feedback from the above consultation has been reviewed and final advice drafted and
considered by the Minister of Fisheries, MFish will also seek feedback from relevant
government departments.
85
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - IDENTIFICATION OF
CONTAINERS HOLDING FRESHWATER EELS
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) is proposing to amend the Fisheries (Commercial
Fishing) Regulations 2001 (‘the regulations’) to extend container labelling
requirements to freshwater eels. The regulations currently stipulate that commercial
fishers must identify containers holding rock lobsters and shellfish. Container
identification requirements do not currently apply to eels (e.g. eel holding bags) 17.
2
There is currently no requirement for commercial fishers to label eel holding bags.
Fishery Officers have no way of identifying the legality of any catch found in such
containers when they are left unattended. Some commercial eel fishers transfer eels
from fyke nets to holding bags, in which they may be stored for several days, before a
licensed fish receiver (LFR) collects them, or the accumulated catch is taken to the
premises of a LFR. Eel fishers work across large areas, thus it is hard to identify the
fishers responsible when holding bags are located without any labels on them.
3
The proposal is to amend the regulations to include freshwater eels within the
requirement for commercial fishers to label fish containers.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
4
A Regulatory Impact Statement for this issue has been completed because the
proposal is to introduce a new requirement.
The Issue
5
Regulations 53 requires commercial fishers to label fish containers containing cockle,
kina, mussels, octopus, oyster, paddle crab, paua, pipi, scallop, tuatua, rock lobster, or
rock lobster tails with various details 18. These requirements allow Fishery Officers to
identify legitimate commercial activities, isolating those which are not. The
requirement however, does not include containers holding freshwater eels. This is
inconvenient in the eel fishery given the practice by some commercial fishers of
leaving full holdings bags unattended for several days prior to collection.
17
Except for regulation 11P of the Fisheries (South-East Area Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986 which
requires containers holding eels taken from Lake Ellesmere (Te Waihora) to be labelled.
18
If operating from a vessel, the label must include: (a) the name and registered number of the fishing vessel
from which the shellfish were taken; (b) the date on which the shellfish were taken; (c) except in the case of
rock lobsters, the area from which the shellfish were taken; (d) the signature of the operator, notified user, or
master of the vessel from which the shellfish were taken; and (e) the client name and number of the permit
holder under whose permit the shellfish were taken. If not operating from a vessel, the label must include:
(a) the permit holder's initials and surname; (b) the permit holder's fishing permit number; (c) the date on which
the shellfish were taken; (d) except in the case of rock lobsters, the area from which the shellfish were taken;
and (e) the permit holder's signature.
86
6
Commercial eel fishers often transfer eels to holding bags from which these are
collected by, or transported to, LFRs. Eels may be stored in holding bags for several
days before this occurs. Commercial eel fishers operate over large areas and can be
very hard to locate while fishing. In the event that a Fishery Officer locates a holding
bag, and the commercial fisher is not present at the time to confirm that it is his or her
catch, it is important to be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate
catch. At present it is not possible to do this. The requirement to label containers
holding eels would simplify the Fishery Officer’s task of monitoring commercial
fishers’ activities and catch. Lack of identification in this context may affect
legitimate commercial fishers as their catch could be misidentified (by Fishery
Officers, other fishers or the public) and may be lost, but may also provide an
opportunity for illegal fishers to conceal their activity.
7
The regulations do not currently provide for a requirement to label containers holding
eels. An amendment to the regulations is proposed to require commercial fishers to
label containers holding eels. This would address the issues described above and
would allow the identification of eel holdings bags, as being related to legitimate
commercial activity.
8
There currently are no specific container labelling requirements for non-commercial
eel fishers either. This however is not believed to be a problem given the practices of
non-commercial fishers and other requirements 19. For this reason, no additional
requirements are proposed for non-commercial fishers.
Summary of Options
Option 1 – Status quo
9
Make no amendment to the regulations; commercial fishers are not required to label
containers holding freshwater eels.
Option 2 – Amend the regulations to include freshwater eels within
container labelling requirements
10
An amendment to the regulations to include freshwater eels (Anguilla dieffenbachia,
Anguilla australis and Anguilla reinhardtii) within container labelling requirements
(preferred option) 20.
Rationale for Management Options
11
An amendment to the regulations is proposed under section 297 of the Fisheries Act
1996 (the Act), which allows the creation of regulations for a variety of purposes,
including the use of any gear, equipment, or devices used for, or related to, fishing. In
making a decision, the Minister should take into account the risks that the status quo
19
For instance, recreational daily bag limit, customary authorisations valid for limited periods of time, record of
authorisations available to Fishery Officers, commercial and customary catch taken in the same trip to be
differentiated and labelled accordingly.
20
This would imply amending regulation 53 of the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 by adding
‘freshwater eels’ to the species listed under 53(1) and 53(2).
87
presents (ie. inability to identify the content of holding bags as the product of
legitimate commercial activities) and the potential benefit of the amendment to the
effectiveness of compliance activities and legitimate fishing interests.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
12
Option 1 would continue preventing Fishery Officers from identifying catch in eel
holding bags as related to legitimate commercial activities, as these would continue to
be excluded from container labelling requirements.
Costs
13
The cost of maintaining the status quo would primarily be the inability for Fishery
Officers to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate catch when inspecting eel
holding bags. This is a cost to legitimate commercial fishers given that
misidentification of their catch (by Fishery Officers, other fishers or the public) could
result in their catch being lost. A cost to all legitimate fishing interests (commercial,
recreational and customary) also exists if the opportunity to conceal illegal catch is
created by the lack of an identification requirement for eel holding bags.
Benefits
14
Aside from minor cost savings from not making regulatory amendments and
communicating changes and new requirements to commercial fishers, the status quo
presents no benefits.
Option 2 – Amend the regulations to include eels within container
labelling requirements
Impact
15
Option 2 would enable Fishery Officers (and other fishery interests) to identify the
ownership of eel holding bags, and in that way confirm that the catch is the product of
legitimate activity, allowing illegal catch to be dealt with and thereby acting as a
deterrent.
Costs
16
Option 2 would result in minor administrative costs to fulfil regulatory amendments
and communicating the new requirements to commercial fishers. The costs for
commercial fishers would be minimal as all this amendment requires is for
commercial fishers to label containers holdings eels in the same manner as other gear
and containers holding other species are currently labelled.
88
Benefits
17
The proposed amendment would improve the ability of Fishery Officers to identify
legitimate catch when coming across eel holding bags. For commercial fishers, the
benefit includes a reduction in catch losses resulting from misidentified holding bags.
A benefit to other legitimate fishing interests also exists by reducing the opportunity
for illegal fishers to conceal unlabelled catch under legitimate activities. These
benefits are believed to outweigh the costs described above.
Statutory Considerations
18
In considering the proposed amendments, the Minister is required to follow relevant
statutory criteria contained in the Act. These criteria are set out below.
19
Section 5 outlines the application of international obligations and of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 within the context of the Act. The
amendment proposed is consistent with, and reinforces, international obligations and
obligations set out in the Settlement Act. In relation to eel fisheries, the proposed
amendment would reduce opportunities to conceal illegal catch, which affects
legitimate fishing interests such as those of tangata whenua. Likewise, New Zealand
has obligations under international agreements to manage catadromous species such
as eels. The proposed amendment is consistent with that obligation.
20
Sections 8, 9 and 10 set out the purpose, environmental principles and information
principles of the Act respectively. The proposed amendment is consistent with, and
reinforces, this purpose and these principles.
21
Section 297 (1)(viii) prescribes the power to regulate or prohibit the possession or use
of any kind of gear, equipment, or device used for, or related to, fishing, including
container labelling requirements.
22
Consequently, regulation 53 of the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001
require containers holding cockle, kina, mussels, octopus, oyster, paddle crab, paua,
pipi, scallop, tuatua, rock lobster, or rock lobster tails to be labelled. The requirement
however does not include containers holding freshwater eels, such as holdings bags.
The Minister is asked to make a decision in this context.
23
Regulation 11P of the Fisheries (South-East Area Commercial Fishing) Regulations
1986 establishes a requirement to label containers holding eels taken from Lake
Ellesmere (Te Waihora), among other provisions. There are particular requirements in
relation to eels taken from that area therefore the amendment proposed would not
imply revoking regulation 11P. If the Minister agrees to the amendment proposed, it
would not result in conflicting requirements as regional regulations take precedence
over general regulations.
Other Management Issues
24
During the development of this IPP, MFish considered proposing changes to the
information required in current labelling and marking requirements for gear and
containers (e.g. the ‘client number of the permit holder’ as opposed to the ‘permit
89
number’). It was decided to not propose any changes for that purpose at this stage
given that the issue is beyond the scope of this paper. Regardless of this, MFish would
appreciate input from stakeholders on this issue within submissions, particularly with
regards to any inconveniences caused by current labelling and marking requirements
for gear and fish containers.
90
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
Identification of containers holding freshwater eels
Executive Summary
Commercial fishers are required to identify containers holding rock lobsters and shellfish, but
not containers holding freshwater eels 21. Fishery Officers have no way of identifying the
legality of catch found in eel holding bags when they are left unattended. This is a significant
problem in the commercial eel fishery due to the common practice of storing eels in
unattended holding bags for several days. This can provide an opportunity to conceal illegal
fishing activities but may also affect commercial fishers as they risk losing their catch if
holding bags are misidentified. The preferred option is to amend the regulations to include
freshwater eels within container identification requirements for commercial fishers. The main
impact of the proposal would be to allow effective identification of unattended catch and
placing an additional requirement on commercial eel fishers. The proposal does not present
unmanageable risks and is not believed to cause any conflicts with existing legislation.
Adequacy Statement
This Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by the Ministry of Fisheries’
Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Committee and is considered adequate according to the
criteria agreed by Cabinet.
Status quo and Problem
The Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 stipulate that commercial fishers must
label containers holding cockles, kina, mussels, octopus, oyster, paddle crab, paua, pipi,
scallop, tuatua, rock lobster, or rock lobster tails with various details. Freshwater eels are not
included within these requirements.
Commercially taken freshwater eels are often stored in holding bags for several days before
they are collected and transported to the premises of a Licensed Fish Receiver. Commercial
eel fishers operate over large areas and can be very hard to locate while fishing. In the event
that a Fishery Officer locates a holding bag, and the commercial fisher is not present at the
time to confirm that it is his or her catch, it is important to be able to distinguish between
legitimate and illegitimate catch. Fishery Officers have no way of identifying the legality of
any catch found in eel holding bags when they are left unattended. The inability to identify
responsibility for eel holding bags provides an opportunity to conceal illegal activities (e.g.
fishing for commercial purposes without a fishing permit), which undermines the interests of
legitimate commercial, recreational and customary fishers. Legitimate commercial fishers
may also be disadvantaged by the lack of identification requirements given that they risk
losing their catch if it is misidentified by Fishery Officers, other fishers or the public.
The status quo, therefore, presents no benefits, and several disadvantages mentioned above.
Introducing a new requirement in this context would allow a more effective protection of
legitimate fishing interests and would deter illegal fishing activities.
21
Unless taken from Lake Ellesmere, as outlined by regulation 11P of the Fisheries (South-East Area
Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986
91
There currently are no specific container labelling requirements for non-commercial eel
fishers either. This however is not believed to be a problem given the practices of these
fishers and other requirements that apply to them, which would generally discourage or
prevent eel holding bags from being left unattended for extended periods. These requirements
include the recreational limit of six freshwater eels per person per day, the specified period of
time within which customary fishing under an authorisation may occur and the records of
customary authorisations issued being available to Fishery Officers. Additionally, in the
event that commercial and customary freshwater eels are taken in the same fishing trip, there
are specific provisions for the catch to be labelled and differentiated. For this reason, no
additional requirements are proposed for non-commercial fishers.
Objectives
The objective sought with the proposal is to better protect the value obtained from freshwater
eel fisheries by legitimate commercial, recreational and customary fishers by reducing an
opportunity to conceal illegal catch arising from the lack of container labelling requirements
for commercial fishers.
Alternative Options
No viable alternative options to address the problem have been identified.
Preferred Option
The preferred option is to amend the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 to
include freshwater eels within container labelling requirements. This is the preferred option
because it would significantly reduce the problem of not being able to identify the legality of
eels left unattended in holding bags. Furthermore, commercial eel fishers would benefit from
the removal of the risk of losing their catch if it is misidentified. By deterring illegal
activities, the amendment proposed would allow a more effective protection of legitimate
fishing interests. Aside from the administrative cost of implementing the regulatory
amendment, another cost resulting from the proposal would be the cost to commercial eel
fishers to label their containers. The proposal would not result in significant costs to
commercial eel fishers, the Ministry of Fisheries or other parties.
A risk arising from the proposed amendment is non-compliance with the requirement. The
provision of timely information to affected stakeholders would be the main way to manage
this risk. This information would highlight the benefit to commercial fishers of complying
with the requirement. Additionally, monitoring of compliance with the requirement would be
performed within existing monitoring and surveillance activities performed by the Ministry
of Fisheries. A deterrent to non-compliance with the requirement, which already exists, is the
risk of losing catch if it is misidentified. In the event of significant non-compliance, offences
and penalties are set out within the relevant regulations to deter such behaviour also.
This proposal is an addition to existing regulations and works in conjunction with the
requirement for containers holding rock lobsters or shellfish to be labelled. This would result
in additional species for which container labelling is required. The proposal does not conflict
with existing legislation and does not require other regulations, aside from those mentioned
above, to be amended or revoked.
92
Implementation and Review
If approved, this proposal would be given effect on 1 October 2008. Once the Minister has
made a decision, commercial fishers would be notified by a letter from the Minister and the
change would be announced on the Ministry of Fisheries website. Fishery Officers would be
aware of the requirement and would be able to inform commercial fishers who may have
additional queries. Monitoring of the requirement would be undertaken by Fishery Officers
through existing surveillance and monitoring activities taking place across relevant fisheries.
Consultation
Stakeholders will be consulted on this proposal as part of the Ministry of Fisheries
Regulatory Round consultation process; a document which includes all proposed regulatory
amendments was circulated to relevant parties and posted on the Ministry of Fisheries
website.
93
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - REPORTING OF NONDEFINED PROCESSED STATES
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) proposes to amend the Fisheries (Reporting)
Regulations 2001 to require that fishers landing fillets in processed states that are not
listed in Schedule 3 of Part 3 of the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 and/or
described in the Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Notice 2005, apply a conversion
factor (CF) to each of the constituent parts of that fillet to obtain a cumulative
greenweight.
2
The management objective of this proposal is to attain the most accurate measure
possible of greenweight of non-defined processed states.
3
This management objective is being threatened by the on-processing of fillet product
at sea into non-defined processed states. Processed states that are specified by a
portion size or weight, ie, non-defined processed states, cannot be administered under
a conversion factor regime because they do not have a constant recovery rate; the
actual recovery rate will vary according to the size distribution of the catch.
4
MFish’s preferred option is to amend the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 to:
5
●
Allow for the application of greenweight (and therefore a CF) to multiple
principal landed states, rather than just the one that has the greatest actual
weight as is the case at the moment;
●
Apply in cases where fillets are produced and then further processed into nondefined processed states;
●
Specify that where fish are on-processed into non-defined processed states,
none of those states may be declared as additional landed states;
●
Allow for generic non-defined landed fillet landed state codes in Part III of the
Second Schedule.
This is MFish’s preferred option because it will allow for a more accurate estimation
of the greenweight of non-defined processed states. MFish’s preferred long-term
option is to introduce greenweight weighing at sea, which would render obsolete the
problems presented by non-defined processed states. However, both Industry and
MFish recognise that this may be a long-term option and that a pragmatic short-term
fix to the issue of reporting of non-defined processed states is desirable.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
6
This IPP required a Regulatory Impact Statement which was reviewed internally by
MFish.
94
The Issue
Conversion factors and principal and additional landed states
7
The catch of most species must be reported as greenweight. Greenweight means the
weight of a fish prior to any processing or removal of any part of a fish. Many fishing
vessels process their catch at sea, so a mechanism is needed to assess the greenweight
so that it can be accurately reported.
8
Section 188(1)(a) of the Fisheries Act 1996 provides that “… conversion factors shall
be used to translate the weight of the fish … in the state to which it has been
processed to the greenweight …”
9
Conversion factors are numeric values used to multiply the weight of processed fish to
arrive at a greenweight value for that fish for reporting purposes. A conversion factor
is the ratio of greenweight to processed weight. The value of the conversion factor is
proportional to the amount of the fish removed during processing. Conversion factors
are based on sampling data collected by MFish Observers.
10
The Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Notice 2005 includes a number of processed state
definitions. In general, these definitions accord with states commonly produced by
vessels processing at sea. The Notice also sets conversion factor ratios, each of which
applies to a particular species processed to a particular landed state. Section 5(2)
provides for landed states that are intermediate between two defined states.
11
Regulation 36(2) of the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 requires that a
conversion factor is applied to only one “principal landed state” The principal landed
states must be the state that has the greatest actual weight, ie, that it represents the
largest proportion of the whole fish. All other products derived from the same fish
must be reported as “additional landed states” and their weights are not included in the
greenweight calculation.
Non-defined Processed States
12
Vessels processing at sea have produced and continue to produce product specified by
portion size or weight. Many of these products are derived from skin-off fillets,
particularly fillets from hoki (HOK). Common products include “loins”, “steaks”
and “centros”. Loins are rectangular, skinless and boneless portions specified by size
and weight. They are usually cut from the anterior dorsal portion of the fillet. Usually
only one loin portion is cut from each fillet, but two may be cut from large fillets.
“Steaks” consist of a vertical section through a fillet. “Centros” portions consist of a
vertical section of the fillet from behind the belly-flap.
13
There are variations between processing specifications for “loin”, “steaks” and
“centros”. Products and terminology vary between companies, as well as between
different vessels fishing for the same company.
14
The remaining parts of the fillet, and whole skin-off trimmed and de-fat fillets not
suitable for “loin”, “steak” or “centros” production, may be consigned to fillet
“block” or processed to states such as mince and fishmeal.
95
15
There are variations between processing specifications for “loin”, “steak” and
“centros”. Products and terminology vary between companies as well as between
different vessels fishing for the same company. There is no guarantee that these
product names will continue to be used. New terminology and processed states may
appear at any time in response to market demands.
16
This paper subsequently refers to such processed states as non-defined processed
states.
Lack of clarity in the definition of the landed state of skin-off trimmed fillets
17
The current definition of the landed state of skin-off trimmed fillets (TSK) for hake,
hoki, ling and southern blue whiting included in the Fisheries (Conversion Factors)
Notice 2005 (see Annex I) is complex, loose and imprecise. The definition does not
place limits on the degree to which a fillet can be trimmed, and allows excessive
latitude to operators who report fillet product as TSK, to the extent that enforcing
accurate reporting of greenweight may not be possible.
18
The imprecision of the definition provides operators considerable latitude in deriving
non-defined processed states. Although most landed state definitions were reviewed
and amended in 2005, the TSK definition was deferred while other options were
considered.
Incompatibility between non-defined processed states and conversion factor/
reporting regime
19
The Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Notice 2005 only provides for processed states
that are a more or less constant proportion of the fish. Processed states that are
specified by a portion size or weight, ie, non-defined processed states, cannot be
administered under a conversion factor regime, because they do not have a constant
recovery rate 22; the actual recovery rate will vary according to the size distribution of
the catch.
20
There are also variations between companies and vessels in the reporting of nondefined processed states, and these variations affect the accuracy of greenweight
reporting. Examples of reporting practices for reporting the greenweight equivalent of
products derived from on-processing of hoki TSK fillets are as follows:
a)
All the products derived from the fillet are reported as principal landed states.
For example, loins are reported as de-fat fillets (DFT), fillet piece block as
TSK and mince as mince, skin-off fillets (MKF).
b)
Some of the products derived from the fillet are reported as principal landed
states and some as additional landed states. For example, loins and fillet piece
block are reported as TSK, and mince is reported as an additional landed state
of by-product, skin-off fillets (MBS).
c)
One of the products derived from the fillet is reported as a principal landed
state and all others as additional landed states. For example, loins are reported
22
The recovery rate is the ratio of processed weight to greenweight, eg, a recovery rate of 33% would be
achieved if 3 tonnes of whole fish were processed into 1 tonne of fish fillets.
96
as DFT and all other products such as fillet block or mince as additional
landed states.
21
Some difficulties inherent in these reporting practices are as follows:
a)
Reporting practice (a) in theory reports greenweight reasonably accurately
because it includes all products derived from on-processed fillets in the
calculation of greenweight, but does not comply with Regulation 36(2) of the
Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001, because more than one principal
landed state is reported.
b)
Reporting practice (b) reports more than one principal landed state, yet underreports greenweight because some of the product derived from the onprocessed fillets are not included in the greenweight calculation.
c)
Reporting practice (c) complies with Regulation 36(2) of the Fisheries
(Reporting) Regulations 2001 by reporting only one principal landed state,
although in many cases the product reported as the principal landed state may
not represent the greatest actual weight. This practice under-declares
greenweight because some of the products derived from the on-processed
fillets are not included in the greenweight calculation.
Other problems posed by non-defined processed states
22
Along with the incompatibility of non-defined processed states with the conversion
factor regime and reporting system, the practice poses numerous other difficulties:
•
It is not difficult for vessel operators to divert homogeneous product such as
meal and mince from a principal to an additional landed state, with consequent
under-reporting of greenweight. Mince derived from on-processing fillets may
be mixed with mince from legitimate additional landed state sources, eg,
mince from fish frames.
●
The fishing industry’s present financial circumstances provide a powerful
incentive to maximise value. Non-defined processed states are high value
products. Companies that under-report greenweight in the course of processing
and landing such high value products are not bearing the full Compliance and
Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) costs of their operations.
•
MFish has some ability to monitor and audit the reporting of non-defined
processed states. Recent monitoring has indicated that the under-reporting of
greenweight, particularly under reporting practice (c) above, can be
substantial. Physical inspection by MFish of landings of non-defined
processed states can be laborious and potentially damaging to high value
product.
●
Reports from MFish Observers describe the difficulty of keeping track of
various components during processing. Fillets are often split into components
that end up in different product lines. This can make it very difficult for
Observers to determine valid conversion factors. Observers could, in theory,
obtain a trip-specific CF for constant-weight portions such as loins, if they
took a sufficiently large, unbiased sample. Such a trip-specific CF could not be
applied universally, as it would only be valid for the fish-size distribution
encountered on the sampled trip.
97
Conclusion
23
The Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 need to be clarified to specify one
consistent procedure for reporting of non-defined processed states in such a way that
captures greenweight as accurately as possible.
Summary of Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
24
The status quo would mean a continuation of the current situation whereby nondefined processed states are not reported in any consistent fashion, which may lead to
an under-reporting of greenweight.
Option 2 – MFish Preferred Option
Summary
25
26
MFish’s preferred option is to require fishers to establish the greenweight of a nondefined processed state by applying a CF to the processed states derived from a
defined fillet state. The Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 would be amended to:
●
Allow for the application of greenweight (and therefore a CF) to multiple
principal landed states, rather than just the one that has the greatest actual
weight as is the case at the moment;
●
Apply in cases where fillets are produced and then further processed into nondefined processed states;
●
Specify that where fish are on-processed into non-defined processed states,
none of those states may be declared as additional landed states;
●
Allow for generic non-defined fillet landed state codes in Part III of the
Second Schedule.
This is MFish’s preferred option because it allows for a more accurate estimation of
greenweight of non-defined landed states.
How the preferred option would operate in practice
27
The preferred option is a three step process as follows –
a)
Making a determination that the product does not fall within the principal and
additional landed state framework, and that it fits within the non-defined
processed states framework;
b)
Determining the ‘base state’;
c)
Applying a conversion factor to all the non-defined processed states produced
from the base state.
Decision
28
The first step is for operators of vessels processing at sea to determine whether it is
appropriate to default to the non-defined process state regime. MFish will work with
98
Industry representatives on the Conversion Factors Working Group to develop a clear,
unambiguous decision-making process. This “decision tree” will not form part of the
regulations, but could form part of the explanatory notes or other background
material.
29
It is important to note that there will be one, consistent and regulated method of
reporting non-defined processed states. This method will replace the variety of de
facto practices currently employed by Industry, some of which were described earlier
in this paper.
Base state
●
MFish proposes to specify a “base state”, ie, the state before non-defined
landed states are produced.
●
MFish proposes that the ‘base state” from which non-defined processed states
are derived should be a skin-off trimmed fillet product state. MFish notes:
●
Definitions for untrimmed- and trimmed-type fillets from the Fisheries
(Conversion Factors) Notice 2005 are set out in Annex I. Most fillet
state definitions fit into a simple hierarchy characterised by an
increasing amount of processing and a consequently increasing
conversion factor. These states are as follows, from least to most
processed –
Skin-on untrimmed
Skin-on trimmed
Skin-off trimmed
●
Most fillet product processed at sea is machine-filleted. It is this
product that provides the ‘base state’ before processing into nondefined processed states. Information from MFish examination of
vessel product by MFish Compliance and Observer officers indicate
that machine filleted product does not comply with the untrimmed state
definition, but does comply with the trimmed definition. Thus MFish
proposes that the ‘base state’ will be a skin-off trimmed fillet-type
product, although this should not be confused with the current TSK
definition.
●
The current definition of ‘skin-off trimmed fillets’ (TSK) in the Notice
is, as noted above, complex, loose and imprecise. The definition does
not place limits on the degree to which a fillet can be trimmed, and
allows excessive latitude to operators who report fillet product as TSK,
to the extent that enforcing accurate reporting of greenweight may not
be possible. The current TSK definition does not fit into the hierarchy
of fillet states described above. The TSK definition will be amended to
fit within that hierarchy.
99
Application of Conversion Factor
●
30
A conversion factor would be applied to all of the non-defined states produced
from the ‘base state.’ Conversion factors specified for that state will not be
appropriate for the non-defined processed states regime. Conversion factors
for this regime will need to take account of:
●
Weight loss during processing of the base state into non-defined
processed states; and
●
The imperative of not producing any incentive to mis-declare product
in order to attract a lower CF. A key element in the overall proposal is
to define product more precisely than is the case at present, to
minimise incentives to mis-declare product.
●
A CF will also be applied to any trimmings that go to meal, block or mince.
Product may not be diverted from principal to additional landed states.
●
A CF would not be applied to genuine additional landed states, such as heads,
guts etc, consistent with current practice.
MFish will consult with Industry on appropriate CFs within the CF Working Group.
Amendment to Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001
31
MFish proposes that Regulation 36(2) be amended by inserting wording along the
following lines:
“For fish landed in a state listed in Schedule 3, (new Part 3A), greenweight must be
calculated by summing the total processed weight of all fish product that was derived
from the corresponding processed state as listed in the ‘base state’ column in Schedule
3A, multiplied by the conversion factor for the state listed in the Fisheries
(Conversion Factors) Notice 2005 under s 188 of the Fisheries Act 1996.”
32
As noted above, non-defined fillet products are continually evolving and subject to a
large degree of variation between vessels and companies, MFish does not believe that
it is desirable or even possible to specify landed state definitions for non-defined
processed states. As an alternative, MFish proposes to promulgate generic landed state
codes in Part III of the Second Schedule to the Regulations to cover non-defined
landed states that are on-processed from a revised skin-off trimmed fillet state. For
illustrative purposes only, non-defined processed states could be declared as follows:
Base state
Landed state code of product
derived from base state
Landed state code of
trimmings produced
CF
TSK*
NDA (loins, steaks etc derived
from TSK)
NDZ (trimmings made while
NDA is being produced)
TBD*
* The definition of TSK to be revised.
* The conversion factors for NDA and NDZ are yet to be determined but are likely to be slightly higher than the
conversion factor for the base state to account for losses in the further processing.
100
33
Explanatory notes will be developed to guide fishers in how they are to complete
Catch Effort Returns and Catch Landing Returns to accommodate the new system.
Amendments to Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Notice 2005
34
As part of this new regime, MFish also proposes to amend the Fisheries (Conversion
Factors) Notice 2005 to:
a)
Delete the current interpretation of the “skin-off trimmed fillet” landed state as
it relates to hoki, hake, southern blue whiting and ling, and replace it with an
interpretation based on the trimmed-type fillet illustrated in Annex I;
b)
Include in clause 3 (the interpretation) an overall definition of the “fillet state”.
This might be a something along the lines of “a state consisting of: all or part
of the epaxial and/or hypaxial musculature; separated from skeletal elements;
and not rendered to a homogeneous state such as mince or meal.”
c)
Specify conversion factors for the base states that apply to the non-defined
processed state regime, for hoki, hake, southern blue whiting and ling, and
other species as appropriate.
Option 3 – Alternative Option
35
36
MFish’s preferred long-term option is to introduce greenweight weighing at sea,
which would render obsolete the problems presented by non-defined processed states.
The benefits of this system would be as follows:
a)
A more accurate means of determining greenweight for vessels producing nondefined processed states;
b)
A less complex and ambiguous regime;
c)
From Industry’s perspective, there would be increased freedom of action and
reduced risk. Operators could do what they like with their catch once the
greenweight is accurately captured.
MFish has employed a contractor to undertake a study of the feasibility of
greenweight weighing at sea. However, both Industry and MFish recognise that this is
a long-term option and that a pragmatic short-term fix to the issue of reporting of nondefined processed states is desirable, thus option 2.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
37
As noted above, the status quo would result in a continuation of the situation whereby
there may be significant under-reporting of greenweight of non-defined processed
states and no consistency in how these products are reported.
101
Costs
38
It is not possible to precisely estimate the costs of the greenweight under-reported, but
Compliance research indicates that it is likely to be substantial.
Benefits
39
There are no benefits associated with a continuation of the status quo.
Option 2
Impact
40
MFish’s preferred option will be promulgated in the Fisheries (Reporting)
Regulations 2001, pursuant to s 297(1)(h), and effective from 1 October 2008.
41
The proposed new regime will be subject to the same offences and penalties
provisions under the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2005 as apply to other relevant
requirements for completing fisheries catch effort returns.
42
The proposed new system for reporting non-defined processed states will form part of
the existing conversion factor regime. As noted above, there will be consequential
amendments to the Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Notice 2005, some of which
involve deleting existing provisions.
43
MFish Compliance will monitor Industry compliance with the new regime. MFish
Observers will also collect information on vessels processing non-defined processed
states to feed into the annual conversion factor review process.
Costs
44
MFish notes that Industry representatives have expressed a preference for the ‘base
state’ to be untrimmed fillet product. Industry representatives argue that vessels don’t
generally trim the fillet before they start producing non-defined landed states. As
noted above, however, information from MFish Compliance and Observer officers
indicates that machine-filleted product does not comply with the trimmed definition in
the Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Notice 2005. MFish will discuss this matter further
with Industry representatives on the CF Working Group.
45
There may be reporting implications in circumstances where different product is
packed together; it may be necessary to require that certain product (loins, mince etc)
be packed separately. This will also be discussed further with Industry representatives.
Benefits
46
The benefits of this proposed approach are:
●
It will require a consistent reporting regime across all sectors of Industry,
whereas at the moment there are differing approaches depending upon
interpretation of the legislation;
102
●
It will require operators to apply a CF to each of the non-defined states and
thus derive a more accurate cumulative greenweight; and
●
Setting a CF for the generic landed states that recognises further on-processing
of the fillet will allow for a more accurate estimation of greenweight.
Option 3
Impact
47
48
The impacts of adopting option 3 would be as follows:
a)
A more accurate means of determining greenweight for vessels producing nondefined product states;
b)
A less complex and ambiguous regime;
c)
From Industry’s perspective, there would be increased freedom of action and
reduced risk. Operators could do what they like with their catch once the
greenweight is accurately captured.
As noted above, MFish is undertaking a desktop study of the feasibility of
greenweight weight. It is premature at this stage to discuss possible enforcement
strategies and changes to existing rules.
Costs
49
The costs and relative disadvantages and risks associated with greenweight weighing
at sea will be addressed as part of the desktop study and discussions with Industry.
Benefits
50
The benefits of this option are outlined above.
Other Management Controls
51
There are no other management controls to be considered.
Statutory considerations
52
Annex III contains the ‘Statutory considerations’ relevant to this proposal.
Other Management Issues
Environmental considerations
53
MFish does not consider that the proposal has any implications in relation to
associated or dependent species, biological diversity of the aquatic environment, or
habitats of particular significance for fisheries management (section 9 of the Fisheries
Act 1996).
103
Compliance considerations
54
MFish Compliance wishes to prevent scenarios whereby product may be diverted
from principal to additional landed states, with the consequence that greenweight is
under-declared. Auditing and enforcing the proposed regime will require careful
thought. One option MFish is considering is to impose specific conditions on vessels
that wish to produce non-defined processed states.
104
Annex I
Fillet state definitions
Anatomical landmarks referred to in Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Regulations 2005
DORSAL
Epaxial Line
ANTERIOR
POSTERIOR
Horizontal
Septum
Peritoneum
Hypaxial Line
VENTRAL
Untrimmed-type fillet
Description from Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Regulations 2005:
(i)
the anterior cut being a continuous straight line passing immediately behind the
pectoral fin insertion; and
(ii)
the forward angle of the anterior cut not less than 90 degrees with respect to the
longitudinal axis of the fish; and
(iii)
no part of the tail cut forward of a line drawn perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of
the fish where the vertical depth of the body of the fish is 60mm, or a line drawn
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the fish at the anus, if the vertical depth of the body
is less than 60mm at that line; and
105
(iii)
the dorsal and ventral cuts made adjacent to the dorsal and ventral midlines of the
fish; and
(iv)
the hypaxial and epaxial lines present along the full length of the fillet.
This fillet state description currently applies to skin-on untrimmed fillets (UTF.)
Trimmed-type fillet
The Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Regulations 2005 descriptions for trimmed-type fillets are
the same as for untrimmed-type fillets with respect to clauses (i) to (iii). The difference is
defined by clauses (iv) and (v):
(iv)
(v)
the epaxial line and horizontal septum present along the full length of the fillet; and
the hypaxial line present from the anus to the posterior cut.
The trimmed-type fillet description allows the processor to trim the belly-flap.
This description applies to fillets skin-on (FIL), skin-off fillets (SKF) and skin-on trimmed
fillets (TRF).
Current definition of skin-off trimmed fillets
The current interpretation of the landed state of skin-off trimmed fillets in the Fisheries
(Conversion Factors) Notice 2005 is:
“skin-off trimmed fillets” means,—
(a)
in relation to ling, the state in which the flesh has been removed from either side of
the body of the fish from immediately behind the pectoral fin, with all parts of the ventral fins
removed, the bellyflap partially or totally removed, or the tail width greater than 40 mm, and
the flesh free of fins and bones, and where the skin has been removed from that flesh:
(b)
in relation to hake and southern blue whiting, the state in which the flesh has been
removed from either side of the body of the fish from immediately behind the head or
pectoral fin to the tail, with all parts of the ventral or pelvic fin removed, and all parts of the
pectoral fin removed, and all of the gut and black membrane removed from the flesh by
trimming, and partial or complete removal of the bellyflap, and the flesh free of fins, bones,
106
and heavy bloodspots or bruises by trimming, and where the skin has been removed from the
flesh:
(c)
in relation to hoki, the state in which the flesh has been removed from either side of
the body of the fish from immediately behind the pectoral fin to the tail, with all parts of the
ventral or pelvic fin removed, and all parts of the pectoral fin removed, and all of the gut and
black membrane removed from the flesh by trimming, and partial or complete removal of the
bellyflap and the flesh free of fins, bones, and heavy bloodspots or bruises by trimming, and
where the skin has been removed from the flesh.
107
Annex II: Statutory Considerations
55
In forming the proposal, the following statutory considerations under the Fisheries
Act 1996 have been taken into account.
56
Section 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 Fishstocks Agreement have been implemented through the
provisions of the Fisheries Act 1996. MFish considers that the proposal is consistent
with both New Zealand’s international obligations and the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
57
Section 8 describes the purpose of the Act as being to provide for the utilisation of
fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability, and defines the meaning of
sustainability and utilisation. The management option presented in the IPP seeks to
achieve the purpose of the Act. In order to provide for sustainability and utilisation, it
is necessary to have accurate and robust information on the level of removals from the
fishery. The proposal is intended to ensure that there is a more accurate estimation of
the greenweight derived from certain fillet states in the deepwater fishery.
58
Section 9(a) and (b) requires the Minister of Fisheries 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. MFish notes that the proposal does not
have any direct impact on associated or dependent species.
59
Section 9(c) requires you to take into account the principle that habitat of particular
importance for fisheries management should be protected. The proposal is unlikely to
have any impact on species habitats.
60
Section 10 sets out the information principles, which requires 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.
On balance, MFish considers that the proposal is derived from the best available
information and covers an appropriate range of caution in relation to the uncertainty in
that information.
61
Section 188(1) provides a power to set conversion factors by notice in the Gazette.
62
Section 297(1)(b) provides a regulation making power for the purpose of prescribing
the manner and form of records and returns and information that any person may be
required to provide under part X of the Act. The Ministry of Fisheries propose that the
recommended regulations be made pursuant to section 297(1)(b).
108
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
Reporting of Non-defined Processed States
Executive Summary
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) proposes to amend the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations
2001 to require that fishers landing fillets in states that are not defined in those Regulations
apply a conversion factor (CF) to each of the constituent parts of that fillet to obtain a
cumulative greenweight.
In recent years, deepwater vessels have been processing species (principally hoki) into states
that are not defined in Notice or Regulation, but are instead specified by weight or size. These
products are most commonly called “loins”, “steaks” or “centros”. Products and
terminology vary between companies as well as between different vessels fishing for the
same company. For the purpose of this proposal, they are referred to in this paper as nondefined processed states.
These products are not compatible with a conversion factor regime, which requires that a
processed state represents a constant proportion of the whole fish. There is currently no
consistency between companies and vessels in the reporting of non-defined processed states,
and these variations affect the accuracy of greenweight reporting. The practice also presents
other problems, such as the difficulty in MFish monitoring the various components during
processing and the potential diversion of product such as meal and mince from a principal to
an additional landed state.
While MFish would prefer a system of greenweight weighing (which would render obsolete
the problems presented by non-defined processed states), this is most likely a long-term
option to implement. As a pragmatic short-term solution, MFish proposes to allow for the
application of greenweight (and therefore a CF) to multiple principal landed states, rather
than just the one that has the greatest actual weight as is the case at the moment.
Consequential amendments will also be required to the Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Notice
2005.
Adequacy Statement
This Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by the Ministry of Fisheries’
Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Committee and is considered to meet the criteria agreed
by Cabinet.
Status Quo and Problem
Regulation 36(2) of the Regulations allows for a conversion factor (CF) to be applied to fish
processed into one principal landed state. As the principal landed state will encompass the
greatest weight of the fish, the CF should provide an accurate account of the greenweight of
the fish.
In recent years, deepwater vessels have been processing species (principally hoki) into states
that are not defined in Notice or Regulation, but are instead specified by weight or size. These
products are known as non-defined processed states.
109
Non-defined processed states are not compatible with a CF regime, which requires that a
processed state represents a constant proportion of the whole fish. It is not difficult for vessel
operators to divert homogeneous product such as meal and mince from a principal to an
additional landed state, with consequent under-reporting of greenweight.
From the MFish Compliance perspective, auditing landings of non-defined processed states is
very difficult. Under the current regime, MFish believes that there are many incentives and
opportunities to misreport catch processed at sea.
Objectives
Section 187 of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) provides that all references to the
weight of fish under that Act are to be to the greenweight of fish, that is, the weight before
any processing commences. In order to convert the weight of fish back to greenweight, the
Act provides for CFs to be established as a ratio of processed weight to greenweight.
The fisheries management objectives for this process are to attain the most accurate
greenweight in order to measure removals from the fishery for stock assessment purposes.
Alternative Options
MFish’s preferred option is to introduce greenweight weighing at sea. The benefits of this
system would be as follows:
a)
A more accurate means of determining greenweight for vessels producing nondefined processed states;
b)
A less complex and ambiguous regime;
c)
From Industry’s perspective, there would be increased freedom of action and
reduced risk. Operators can do what they like with their catch once the
greenweight is accurately captured.
MFish is intending to progress a feasibility study of greenweight weighing shortly. However,
both Industry and MFish recognise that this may be a long-term option and that a pragmatic
short-term solution to the issue of reporting of non-defined processed states is desirable.
Preferred Option
MFish proposes to amend the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 to:
●
Allow for the application of greenweight (and therefore a CF) to multiple
principal landed states, rather than just the one that has the greatest actual
weight as is the case at the moment;
●
Apply in cases where fillets are produced and then further processed into nondefined processed states;
●
Specify that where fish are on-processed into non-defined processed states,
none of those states may be declared as additional landed states;
●
Allow for generic non-defined fillet landed state codes in Part III of the
Second Schedule.
110
Implementation and Review
MFish proposes that the amendments to the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001, if
approved, will come into effect on 1 October 2008.
Commercial fishers will be notified of changes via material distributed by FishServe
(including revised explanatory notes for Catch Effort Returns and Catch Landing Returns),
and posted on the MFish external website and through contact with MFish Fisheries
Surveillance Officers and Fisheries Operations staff. Enforcement of the proposed options
would be achieved through fishers’ interactions with MFish Fisheries Surveillance Officers.
Consequential amendments will also be required to the Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Notice
2005, also to come into effect on 1 October 2008.
Consultation
Preliminary consultation on the proposal has taken place with Industry representatives on the
Conversion Factors Working Group.
111
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - REGULATORY MEASURES
RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR WEIGHING FISH
PACKED AND FROZEN AT SEA
Executive Summary
1
The measures detailed in this paper will address concerns that current legislation is
not prescriptive about how either fishers or the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish)
determine the weight of fish processed and frozen at sea. The lack of prescription
means the fishing industry (Industry) has concerns about the absence of a level
playing field between operators while MFish has concerns about inaccuracies in
reported catch.
2
In 2006 MFish sought to give effect to the recommendations of a joint MFish /
Industry working group that had been set up to examine issues surrounding the
reporting of fish processed and frozen at sea. The working group’s recommendations
included technical regulatory proposals (for example increased product labelling
requirements) as well as a procedure specified in regulation to be used by MFish when
determining the weight of a product line.
3
The regulated procedure to be used by MFish, if implemented as per the working
group’s recommendation, would have contained a provision for a product line to be
treated as under-reported if the declared greenweight was less that the weight obtained
using the procedure. MFish now realises that there is no ability within the Fisheries
Act 1996 (the Act) to create a regulation that would presume a person to be guilty of
misreporting unless he or she can prove otherwise. There is, however, the ability to
regulate the methods to be used for determining the weight of any fish.
4
This IPP proposes an amended weighing procedure that is similar to that
recommended by the working group but does not contain any provisions relating to
presumed under-reporting or misreporting. Under MFish’s preferred option the
procedure would be specified in regulation but would only be required to be used in
the event of doubt or a dispute regarding the reported weight of a product line. MFish
would still have to prove that a commercial fisher or licensed fish receiver had made
an incorrect declaration of weight.
5
The procedure will include specifications relating to:
•
The required sample size depending on the number of containers in a product line;
•
How actual weight of a container of fish is to be determined (deducting container
weight from average gross weight);
•
Permitted deductions from the actual weight of a container for ice glaze or
polyphosphate solutions;
•
How to determine the actual weight of a product line (average actual weight of the
sample times the number of containers in the sample);
•
How to determine the greenweight of a product line (average actual weight of the
sample times the number of containers in the sample times the conversion factor).
112
6
MFish proposes that the amended weighing procedure, together with the technical
regulatory measures approved by the Minister in 2006, comes into force on 1 October
2008.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
7
The proposals contained in this IPP will not have a significant potential impact on
economic growth and the Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by the
Ministry of Fisheries’ Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Group.
The Issue
8
In 2004/2005 a joint MFish/Industry working group was convened to address issues
surrounding the determination of greenweight of fish packed and frozen at sea. There
are inherent difficulties in determining the actual weight of fish that has been packed
and frozen at sea and the working group was set up to address those issues. The
working group reached an agreed position in March 2005 (attached as Appendix 1)
that formed the basis of an Initial Position Paper (IPP) released by MFish in April
2005.
9
Feedback from Industry representatives indicated that they had significant concerns
with certain aspects of MFish’s proposals. MFish agreed to review its proposals and
subsequently released a revised IPP in December 2005. The IPP from December 2005
is attached as Appendix Two.
10
A final advice paper (FAP) was provided to the Minister of Fisheries in May 2006 and
was signed off by the Minister later that month. It is attached as Appendix Three.
There were only minor differences between the proposals in the FAP and those in the
IPP.
11
In June 2006 the Cabinet Economic Development Committee also approved MFish’s
proposals and MFish started the drafting process in conjunction with Parliamentary
Counsel Office (PCO). PCO drafted regulatory amendments relating to all proposals
except the one specifying the weighing methodology to be used by Fishery Officers
(recommendation i. in the FAP). PCO indicated that they considered the proposal to
be ultra vires (outside the scope of the regulation-making power provided in the Act).
12
PCO’s concern was that the proposed provision appeared to alter the usual evidential
burden of the prosecuting authority by creating a rebuttable presumption. PCO
believed that MFish’s proposed regulation would presume a person to be guilty of
misreporting unless he or she could prove otherwise, inconsistent with the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).
13
Because of these concerns MFish decided to put all regulatory proposals contained in
the May 2006 FAP on hold at that time.
14
Having a weighing methodology specified in regulation was a key part of the working
group’s recommendations (see page 3 of Appendix 1). The regulations, if drafted
based on the working group’s report, would have specified a procedure for calculating
a 99% confidence interval around the sample greenweight. A product line would be
treated as under-reported if the declared greenweight was less than the lower limit of a
99% confidence interval around the sample greenweight.
113
15
MFish now realises that it is not possible to make a regulation that gives effect to all
aspects of the working group’s recommended procedure for how MFish determines
the weight of a product line. In particular it is not possible for a regulation to
effectively deem a statement of greenweight to be under-reported.
16
Having now reconsidered this issue MFish believes that it is possible however to have
a weighing methodology specified in regulation that comprises only procedural
matters such as specification of a sample size and deduction of legitimate allowances.
17
Giving effect to the overall aims of the joint MFish/Industry working group is still
considered as very important by MFish as fish packed and frozen at sea comprises a
significant percentage of overall landings from New Zealand fisheries waters. Any
issues that create potential inaccuracies in reported catch have the potential to
undermine the integrity of the QMS. For this reason MFish proposes implementing
the technical regulatory measures agreed to by the Cabinet Economic Development
Committee in June 2006 such that they take effect on 1 October 2008.
18
The purpose of this paper is to propose an amended weighing methodology that
contributes to the overall aims of the working group but does not introduce further
issues with the NZBORA. The regulation containing the amended weighing
methodology would also take effect on 1 October 2008.
19
The combination of technical regulatory measures together with a weighing
methodology specified in regulation will contribute significantly to the working
group’s overall aims of:
•
Enabling industry to take a consistent approach to determining the net weight of
fish processed and frozen at sea;
•
Increasing certainty about the standards that need to be met to ensure catch is being
reported accurately; and
•
Improving the efficiency by which MFish can determine the net weight of fish
processed and frozen at sea.
Summary of Options
Option 1 – Status quo
20
The absence of a regulated weighing methodology that specifies legitimate deductions
for ice glaze or product additives such as polyphosphate solutions will continue to
cause concerns for both MFish and Industry. The working group noted that under the
status quo Industry had concerns about the absence of a level playing field between
operators, while MFish had concerns about inaccuracies in reporting catch.
21
Failing to address these concerns continues to have the potential to undermine the
QMS.
Option 2 – Regulate for a weighing methodology to be used in the event
of doubt or a dispute (MFish preferred option)
22
MFish’s preferred option is to regulate for a weighing methodology to be used for the
determination of the actual weight of a product line in the event of doubt or a dispute
regarding the reported weight of that product line. The draft methodology is detailed
in Schedule 1.
114
23
This is MFish’s preferred option as it will contribute towards achieving the overall
aims of the working group, enhance the integrity of catch balancing and therefore
enhance the credibility of the QMS.
Option 3 – Regulate for a weighing methodology to be imposed on all
parties
24
An alternative to Option 2 is to regulate for a weighing methodology (such as that
detailed in Schedule 1) that all parties would be required to use when determining the
weight of a product line.
25
An advantage of this option is that it would create a level playing field with all fishing
vessel operators and licensed fish receivers (LFRs) knowing exactly what was
required to be done. The main disadvantage of this option is that there are a number of
methods that LFRs could use to determine the weight of a product line. Requiring
them to use one particular method is likely to be inefficient and costly. It is also
contrary to the working group’s desires for Industry to have discretion about how they
determine the weight of a product line.
Option 4 – Impose a weighing methodology to be used by Ministry of
Fisheries via a Code of Practice
26
With this option all LFRs and fishing vessel operators would know how MFish would
weigh a product line. Disadvantages of a Code of Practice include the lack of
regulation status, which would mean that in the event of a prosecution MFish would
still be required to call expert evidence in court to validate the use of the
methodology. Codes of Practice, while valuable, do not have any enhanced status
when viewed by the Courts. All prosecutions based on weighing procedures would
still require expert witnesses from both the prosecution and defence.
Rationale for Management Options
27
The reason for the establishment of the working group was that the current legislation
was not prescriptive about how either fishers or MFish determined the weight of fish
processed and frozen at sea. The working group’s agreed position sought to create an
approved procedure for weighing such fish by specifying in regulation the procedure
to be used by MFish to determine the weight of a product line. The group’s rationale
for wanting the procedure to be specified in regulation and applying only to MFish
was that it would give Industry certainty regarding how MFish would be required to
determine the weight of a product line (thus allowing Industry to adjust their practices
accordingly) while allowing Industry discretion regarding how they determined
product line weights.
28
MFish still considers that some form of standardised weighing methodology is
necessary in order to achieve the working group’s aim of increasing certainty about
the standards Industry needs to meet in order to ensure catch is being reported
accurately. MFish considers that specific aspects of the draft procedure given in
Schedule 1, for example the 2% glaze deduction and 4% polyphosphate deductions
(where appropriate), will contribute towards that aim.
29
The proposed deduction for glazed product (2%) was suggested by the working group
in 2005 and is supported by MFish. The proposed deduction for polyphosphate
solutions (4%) was proposed by MFish. MFish considers the proposed glaze
115
application and polyphosphate solution ratios accurately represent realistic figures
used by the majority of vessels that pack and freeze fish at sea. MFish welcomes
submissions on the proposed deductions.
30
The minimum sample sizes given in Schedule 1 are based on those recommended by
the working group which were, in turn, based on accepted statistical methodology.
31
MFish also considers that having the weighing methodology in a regulation is
preferable to a Code of Practice as it adds an additional degree of certainty that no
other methods will be considered. It also gives it the status of having been approved
by Cabinet and, in the event of a prosecution, obviates the need for expert witnesses to
attest to the robustness of the methodology. A Code of Practice would still be
preferable to the status quo however.
32
As noted in paragraph 27 the working group’s recommendation was for the regulated
procedure to be used by MFish only, thus allowing Industry discretion regarding how
they determined product line weights. MFish now considers that the best approach is
for the regulation to be non-specific in who it applies to and, additionally, that it is
prefaced so that it is only required to be used in the event of doubt or dispute about the
reported weight of a product line.
33
The rationale for MFish’s preferred approach regarding the non-specificity of who the
regulated procedure applies to is that it will allow Industry to have discretion
regarding how they determine product line weights. It will also allow MFish to carry
out its usual procedure of weighing a non-random sample of cartons whilst engaged in
casual inspections. The procedure would only be invoked if preliminary inspections
resulted in MFish having doubts as to the reported weight of a product line.
34
Section 297(1)(a)(xi) of the Act provides for regulations to be made “regulating the
methods, equipment, and devices to be used for determining the size or weight of any
fish, aquatic life, or seaweed”. MFish considers a weighing methodology specified in
regulation would be made under this section of the Act and could be placed within the
Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001.
35
MFish believes that signalling its intention to have the weighing procedure in place,
together with the other related regulations, on 1 October 2008 gives Industry
sufficient time to make the necessary changes to their fishing operations. More
specific information on the amended regulatory requirements will be made available
to the operators of vessels that process and freeze fish at sea prior to the changes
coming into force. Submissions are sought on the proposed timing.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
36
The status quo, the lack of prescriptive legislation about how fishers or MFish
determine the weight of fish processed and frozen at sea, led to the establishment of
the MFish/Industry working group in 2004/05. The working group was established
after Industry attempts to develop a Code of Conduct to address the matter had failed.
37
The reasons for Industry’s attempted Code of Conduct and the subsequent
establishment of the working group were twofold; Industry had concerns about the
116
absence of a level playing field between operators while MFish was concerned about
inaccuracies in reporting catch. All concerns will continue to remain valid until such
time as a solution is achieved.
Costs
38
The status quo does not provide Industry with the required certainty that they are
meeting the standards necessary to ensure catch is reported accurately. It also
potentially undermines the integrity of the QMS if catches are not being reported
accurately. Because of the overall amount of fish that is processed and frozen at sea
inaccurate reporting of catches by only a small percentage may translate into
thousands of tonnes of fish per year that is not accurately accounted for.
39
Many deepwater stocks (those most likely to be processed and frozen at sea) have had
progressive reductions to their total allowable commercial catches (TACCs) in recent
years. Operators may seek to offset the reduced TACCs by taking advantage of the
lack of standards regarding reporting in order to maximise the annual catch
entitlement (ACE) available to them.
40
Because of the difficulties in determining the true and provable weight of fish taken
MFish has not taken any prosecutions regarding misreporting of fish frozen and
packed at sea in recent years
Benefits
41
Maintaining the status quo only benefits those vessel operators who may take
advantage of the lack of certainty regarding standards necessary to ensure catch is
reported accurately. For example operators may make allowances for glaze that MFish
considers do not reflect the true amount of glaze on certain product types.
Option 2 – Specify in regulation a weighing methodology to be used in
the event of doubt or dispute about the reported weight of a product line
(MFish preferred option)
Impact
42
Specifying in regulation a weighing methodology that is to be used in the event of
doubt or dispute regarding the reported weight of a product line will make a
significant contribution to the aims of the working group (as detailed in paragraph 19).
43
It will enable Industry to take a consistent approach to determining the weight of fish
processed and frozen at sea because any legitimate deductions, including ice glaze and
polyphosphate solutions, will be specified in regulation.
44
The procedure will increase certainty about the standards that need to be met to ensure
catch is being reported accurately. Although Industry will not be required to use the
procedure, it will know that in the event of MFish investigating the reported weight of
a product line and having doubt as to that reported weight MFish will be required to
use the procedure. The procedure will therefore act as a standard that Industry knows
it will have to meet to ensure catch is reported accurately.
45
The procedure, in conjunction with the related technical regulatory measures (for
example additional labelling requirements), will also improve the efficiency by which
MFish can determine the net weight of fish processed and frozen at sea. It will not
change the current practice of allowing MFish to perform casual inspections. In the
117
event that casual inspections lead to MFish having doubts as to the reported weight,
MFish will be required to use the procedure to obtain an estimate of the reported
weight of that product line.
46
A key point about having a regulated weighing methodology that consists only of the
procedural aspects of determining the weight of a product line is that there are no
implications for either MFish or Industry. If invoked by MFish the regulation does not
presume the resulting weight to be correct. Neither does it deem a reported weight to
be incorrect if it is less than the weight obtained by using the procedure. MFish would
still be required to prove that a fisher has provided an incorrect declaration of weight
under the existing offence provisions of the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations
1990 or the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001.
Costs
47
There are no costs to MFish resulting from implementation of a regulated weighing
methodology. There may be costs to some vessel operators who may need to adjust
their current practices in order to meet the standard necessary to ensure catch is
reported accurately. For most operators however there should be no cost.
48
The disadvantage of Option 2 is that it does not require Industry to use the
methodology. This has the same risks as the status quo. However MFish considers
these risks are mitigated by Option 2 for the reasons explained in paragraphs 44-45.
Benefits
49
MFish considers this option will help to achieve the key aims of the working group
around consistency and standards whilst providing flexibility to both Industry and
MFish regarding how product line weights are determined.
Option 3 – Impose regulated methodology on all parties
Impact
50
Under this option both Industry and MFish would be required to use a regulated
weighing methodology to determine the weight of product lines. There would be no
discretion available to either party.
Costs
51
A weighing method such as that detailed in Schedule 1 implies that the fish must be
landed before following the procedure. However it may be easier for operators to
weigh fish at sea using a different method. The requirement to for Industry to use one
method only is therefore likely to impose unnecessary costs as it does not recognise
that there are many ways by which accurate weights could be obtained.
52
From the MFish perspective the requirement to use the methodology under all
circumstances would remove the ability to undertake casual inspections. This would
also likely be time consuming and costly. For the reasons described in this and the
preceding paragraphs this is not MFish’s preferred option.
118
Benefits
53
The benefit of this option is that it would address the working group’s concerns
regarding the lack of a level playing field between operators as all parties would be
required to use the regulated methodology.
Option 4 – Impose procedure on MFish via Code of Practice
Impact
54
Under this option an internal MFish Code of Practice would require Fishery Officers
to use a procedure such as that specified in Schedule 1 whenever conducting
investigations into the weight of a product line. MFish would ensure that Industry was
aware of the Code of Practice in order to achieve the working group’s aims regarding
consistency and certainty.
Costs
55
As with option 3 this option would remove MFish’s ability to undertake casual
inspections.
56
As stated earlier Codes of Practice do not have any enhanced status when viewed by
the Courts, All prosecutions based on weighing procedures would still require expert
witnesses from both the prosecution and defence.
Benefits
57
A benefit of this option is that it would contribute to the working group’s aims of
creating Industry consistency and improving the standards Industry needs to meet to
ensure accurate reporting of catch; Industry would be aware of the approach MFish
would be required to take regarding weighing a product line.
Other Management Controls
58
As detailed in paragraph 11 the weighing methodology was one part of the regulation
package approved by the Cabinet Economic Development Committee in June 2006.
This IPP only relates to an amended proposal for a specified weighing procedure.
MFish does not intend to re-consult on the other regulatory measures, and intends that
those other measures come into force on 1 October 2008. The other measures are
given below.
59
The Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 will be amended to require
commercial fishers packing and freezing fish at sea to label the containers in which
the fish is packed with:
•
Species identifier (common name or scientific name or species code);
•
Landed state;
•
Packing date;
•
Net weight; and
•
A vessel identifier (the name or registration number under the Fisheries Act 1996 or
the number assigned by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority to limited
processing fishing vessels or vessels operating under a registered risk management
programme pursuant to the Animal Products Act 1999).
119
60
The requirement above will not apply to fish that are processed at sea but frozen
individually such as ling, toothfish or tunas, as there is already an established
procedure for identifying and weighing such fish.
61
The Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 will be amended to:
•
Require commercial fishers packing and freezing fish at sea to keep records of
packaging weights and to produce these on demand to any MFish officer;
•
Clarify that ‘naked blocks’ (blocks of fish product without any form of packaging
or wrapping) are containers for the purpose of recordkeeping and labelling;
•
Require Licensed Fish Receivers to include actual weight of fish, rather than net
weight, on unloading dockets (where practicable) and purchase tax invoices;
•
Require Licensed Fish Receivers to include container number and type on purchase
tax invoices as well as unloading dockets;
•
Introduce a definition of ‘product line’ being a set of containers from the same
landing, all containing the same net weight of fish and containing fish of the same
species and landed state; and
•
Allow Licensed Fish Receivers to make deductions for polyphosphate solutions as
well as ice.
Statutory Considerations
62
Section 297(1)(a)(xi) of the Act provides for regulations to be made regulating the
methods, equipment, and devices to be used for determining the size or weight of any
fish, aquatic life, or seaweed.
63
Section 25(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) protects the right
of an accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Regulations may not be
created that are contrary to the rights and freedoms in the BORA unless the enabling
Act specifically allows for it. The Fisheries Act 1996 contains no such enabling
mechanism.
64
Section 25(c) therefore prevents the imposition of a reverse onus of proof in the
absence of an express statutory provision imposing the burden of proof on the
accused. All options, including MFish’s preferred option, are consistent with this
section.
65
Additionally, in forming the management options the following statutory
considerations have been taken into account:
Section 5(a) and (b) – Application of international obligations and Treaty of Waitangi
(Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992: There is a wide range of international
obligations relating to fishing (including sustainability and utilisation of fishstocks
and maintaining biodiversity). MFish considers issues arising under international
obligations and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement
Act 1992 are adequately addressed in the management options.
Section 8 – Purpose of Act: MFish considers Options 2, 3 and 4 presented in this
paper provide the best options for continuing to provide for utilisation of fishstocks
processed and frozen at sea while ensuring sustainability of those stocks.
120
Section 9 – Environmental principles: None of the proposed options have any
implications of section 9 of the Act.
Section 10 – Information principles: The information principles of the Act 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. MFish considers that the procedure proposed in Schedule 1
represents the best available information in terms of accepted statistical methodology
and realistic deductions for ice glaze and polyphosphate solutions.
121
Schedule 1 – Proposed methodology to be specified in regulation for
use in determining actual weight of a product line in the event of doubt or
a dispute regarding the reported weight of that product line
The method detailed below is designed to be used only in situations where there is doubt or a
dispute regarding the reported weight of a product line. Industry will not be obliged to use
the method when completing their recordkeeping and reporting obligations. Similarly,
Fishery Officers will be able to continue their usual procedure of weighing a non-random
sample of cartons whilst engaged in casual inspections.
It is only when doubt or a dispute arises regarding the reported weight of a product line that
Fishery Officers would be obliged to use the method. The subsequent weight obtained by
using the method below would not have any implications, for example it would not be
deemed to be the correct weight. Fishery Officers will still have to prove that a commercial
fisher has provided an incorrect declaration of weight.
Proposed Regulation A:
d)
Any person examining any product line of fish packed and frozen at sea for the
purpose of determining whether the actual weight or greenweight of that
product line has been recorded or reported in accordance with the
requirements of the Act shall either select, examine and weigh a sample from
the product line or examine and weigh all the containers in that product line.
e)
Where a product line contains the number of containers set out in Column I of
Table 1 below, the person electing to take a sample shall select from that
product line a number of containers not fewer than the number set out in
Column II of Table 1, and the containers selected shall constitute the sample.
Comment
Most testing will be carried out on samples in order to determine the actual
weight of greenweight of the product line. Persons may take larger samples if
this is felt to be necessary, but additional samples should seldom be required.
f)
The sample must be selected from the product line at random.
g)
The average gross weight of the containers sampled from a product line shall
be the gross weight of the sample divided by the number of containers in the
sample.
Proposed Regulation B:
h)
The actual weight of a container of fish will be determined by deducting the
container weight from the average gross weight. If the container of fish is a
naked block no container weight shall be deducted.
i)
If the product line is glazed, and if the appropriate landed state code for this
fish product is GRE, GUT, HGU, HGT, HGF, DRE, DSC, DVC or TEN then
a further 2% of the weight calculated in B(i) will be deducted from the gross
weight of the container.
122
j)
Any additives in the product are part of the processed state and no deductions
will be made from the actual weight of the sample. However, if sodium
tripolyphosphate or sodium hexametaphosphate solutions have been added to
either fillets or mince, and the product is clearly labelled as containing these
additives, then a further 4% of the weight calculated in B(i) shall be deducted
from the gross weight of the container.
Comment
Polyphosphate solutions are sometimes added to fillets and mince and cause a
substantial increase in weight of the processed state. It is impossible to
determine the amount of polyphosphate added without destructive testing, but
an allowance of 4% for added weight would meet current industry practice.
Additional labelling is required so that the product which has had a
polyphosphate solution added can be identified as such.
Proposed Regulation C:
k)
A person shall determine the actual weight and, where appropriate, the
greenweight of a product line by applying the following formulae:
Actual weight = A x N
Greenweight = A x N x C
Where: A = the average actual weight of the sample
N = the number of containers in the product line
C = the conversion factor specified in the relevant Fisheries
(Conversion Factors) Notice or in a certificate issued by the
chief executive under section 3A(3) of the Fisheries Act 1983
or section 188 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
Comment
Note that the Conversion Factors Notice simply provides an official ratio for
calculating greenweight and does not apply to all species or to all product
states. The wording “where appropriate” is used here to indicate that in
circumstances where there is no applicable conversion factor the greenweight
formula is not to be used.
l)
If the product line comprises fish frozen and packed whole, the conversion
factor shall be 1.00.
123
Table 1: Sample size for determination of greenweight and/or
actual weight
COLUMN I
COLUMN II
(a) Number of containers in product line
2-20
21-128
129-4000
4001 – 8000
8001-12000
12,000 +
124
(b) Minimum sample size
All containers
One quarter but not fewer than 20
containers
32
64
96
125
Appendix 1 of March 2008 IPP
REPORTING OF FISH PROCESSED AND FROZEN AT SEA
Summary of Agreed Position
March 2005
Introduction
This paper provides a summary of the procedure agreed by SeaFIC and the Ministry of
Fisheries (the Ministry) to determine net weight of fish processed and frozen at sea.
The absence of an approved procedure for calculating processed weight of fish frozen at sea
has created uncertainty and risk of prosecution for operators who otherwise believe they have
an acceptable reporting system. Similarly, the absence of an approved procedure increases
both cost and difficulties for the Ministry when inspecting catch and determining actual
versus reported weights.
The procedure will:
•
enable industry to take a consistent approach to determining the net weight of fish
processed and frozen at sea
•
increase certainty about the standards that need to be met to ensure catch is being reported
accurately
•
improve the efficiency by which the Ministry can determine the net weight of fish
processed and frozen at sea.
Background
The current legislation is not prescriptive about how either fishers or the Ministry determine
the net weight of fish processed and frozen at sea. Industry has concerns about the absence of
a level playing field between operators, while the Ministry is concerned about inaccuracies in
reporting catch.
Industry attempted to develop a Code of Conduct to address the matter. Although a
consensus was not reached for the Code, industry did agree to collaborate with the Ministry
to develop a standard.
A working group of SeaFIC (Eric Barratt and Tom Norris) and Ministry of Fisheries (Dave
Wood and Stan Crothers) representatives developed a proposal for a new system for
calculating processed weight.
The proposal has been discussed with both industry and Ministry staff. SeaFIC engaged Jim
Mace as a consultant to take the proposal to industry and develop a response, which was then
presented to the Ministry.
Areas of disagreement have been resolved, resulting in broad agreement to a procedure for
determining the weight of fish processed and frozen at sea, which is summarised in the
125
subsequent sections.
Definitions
1.
Product line: a set of containers from the same landing, all of the same nominal weight
and containing processed fish of the same species and processed state. A product line
may include more than one size grade.
2.
Gross weight: the weight of the fish, packaging and other non-fish components.
3.
Net weight: the weight of the fish in the state to which it has been processed. The net
weight of a product line will be determined by deducting legitimate allowances for
packaging and other non-fish components from the gross weight.
4.
Greenweight: the weight of fish prior to any processing or removal of any part of the
fish. The greenweight of a product line will be determined by applying the relevant
conversion factor to the net weight of the product line.
126
Principles and procedures
1.
The procedure the Ministry uses to determine the gross, net and greenweights of a
product line will be specified in regulation and will be based on the Average Quantity
System, as enacted in the Weights and Measures Amendment Regulations 2001. The
procedure will be based on weighing a random sample of the product line. The
regulations will specify the sample size as follows:
Number of containers in
product line
Minimum sample size
2–10
11–128
129–4 000
4 001–8 000
8 001–12 000
12 000+
All
25% or at least 10
32
64
96
125
Sample size based on the Average Quantity System, as enacted in
the Weights and Measures Amendment Regulations 2001.
2.
Product can be weighed on or after landing for the purpose of determining gross, net
and greenweights.
3.
Gross weights will be determined by weighing product in the container.
4.
Net weights will be determined by deducting legitimate allowances (as set out in this
paper) from gross weights.
5.
The greenweight of a product line can be determined according to the following
formula: sample mean net weight per container × number of containers in product line ×
conversion factor.
6.
The regulations will specify a procedure for calculating a 99% confidence interval
around the sample greenweight.
7.
Industry will have discretion about how they determine gross, net and greenweights of a
product line. It is recommended that operators take sample sizes no smaller than that
specified for the Ministry.
8.
A product line will be treated as under-reported if the declared greenweight is less than
the lower limit of a 99% confidence interval around the sample greenweight.
127
Permitted deductions
Packaging and, where appropriate, an allowance for non-fish fluids, can be deducted from the
gross weight of a product line in order to determine net weight. No other deductions will be
permitted.
Packaging
1.
Operators will be required to determine the weight of packaging for each product line.
Packaging weight can be determined either on the vessel or onshore at the operator’s
discretion
2.
Records of packaging weights are to be maintained, and produced on demand
3.
Packaging weights must be reviewed when there is a material change in packaging
specification.
4.
Where packaging weights vary between size grades within a product line (such as
plastic interleaving), packaging weight should be based on the median size grade of that
product line.
Non-fish fluids
Allowance for glazing
Operators may deduct an allowance of a specified percentage of the net weight of the frozen
product where the fish has been glazed (usually whole, headed and gutted or dressed product
but would not apply to fillet states) 23.
This allowance will be 2% for glazed product packed in plastic bags and/or cartons.
A different allowance will be deductible for glazed product landed without packaging
(primarily squid). Data is currently being collected to enable this allowance to be
incorporated in regulation.
In circumstances where glazing levels are materially higher than 2% of the gross weight of
the frozen product, operators may apply to the Ministry for a vessel specific deduction for
glaze. The process and procedures to support such an application have yet to be determined,
but it is proposed to use an abbreviated form of the present individual vessel conversion
factor regime.
Polyphosphates
A small number of vessels apply polyphosphate solution to fillets or fillet block at sea.
Operators may make a deduction for polyphosphate added to a product line, provided this
deduction is supported by vessel records.
Marking product
All landed product will be marked with / identifiable by:
1.
species;
2.
23
processed state (standard three letter product code);
The regulations will specify the states where the deduction for glaze is applicable.
128
3.
nominal weight;
4.
packing date.
These requirements will be specified in regulation. Labels with this information should
minimise the cost, time and disruption of sampling to determine the weight of a product line
during MFish inspections.
Operators may use a non-standard product code (for example to meet customers’
requirements) providing the package is also marked with the standard code for the product
state.
Recording landings
Licensed Fish Receivers will be required to make an accurate count of packages landed and
record an accurate, enforceable total on the unloading docket or purchase tax invoice.
Implementation
These procedures will be implemented by regulation, with a target date of 1 October 2005.
Formal consultation will be carried out in early 2005.
As an interim measure, the agreed procedures will be implemented by protocol agreed
between the Ministry and SeaFIC (on behalf of industry).
129
Appendix 2 of March 2008 IPP
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - AMENDMENT TO
REQUIREMENTS FOR DETERMINING AND
RECORDING WEIGHTS OF FISH PACKED AND
FROZEN AT SEA (22 DECEMBER 2005)
Proposal
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) proposes that the Fisheries (Recordkeeping)
Regulations 1990 (‘Recordkeeping Regulations’), the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing)
Regulations 2001 (‘Commercial Fishing Regulations’) and the Fisheries (Conversion
Factors) Notice 2000 (‘Conversion Factors Notice’) be amended to:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Require that all fish packed and frozen at sea is labelled with species name
(common name or scientific name or species code), landed state, packing date
and net weight of the fish along with the identity of the vessel on which it was
packed;
Ensure that “naked blocks” are classed as containers for the purposes of
recordkeeping and labelling;
Consequentially revoke regulation 19(6) of the Commercial Fishing
Regulations, which will be superseded by the proposed amendments;
Clarify the requirement to record actual weight rather than nominal net weight
of fish on purchase tax invoices and unloading dockets;
Require Licensed Fish Receivers to record the number and type of containers
on purchase tax invoices;
Provide a standard deduction of 2% in weight for ice glaze and provide a
mechanism for additional tolerances for certain classes of vessel which
employ more than 2% glaze;
Ensure that additives absorbed by or adsorbed to fish products are treated as
part of the landed state for the purpose of reporting weights;
Require fishermen packing and freezing fish at sea to keep records of
packaging weights; and
Provide a standard method to be used by fishery officers to determine, on
landing, the actual weight of fish product packed and frozen at sea.
Interpretation
2
The following terms are used in this paper:
•
Greenweight – the weight of fish, aquatic life or seaweed before any processing
commences and before any part is removed.
•
Actual weight – the weight of fish in kilograms in its landed state. Actual weight
is determined by deducting legitimate allowances for packaging and other nonfish components from the gross weight.
130
•
Gross weight – the combined weight of fish, packaging and other non-fish
components.
•
Net weight or nominal net weight – the weight at which the product will be
offered for sale.
3
The proposals in this paper are intended to apply to fish that is packed and frozen at
sea. Fish such as ling, toothfish and tunas, that are processed and frozen individually,
but not packed, are not covered by the proposals. As noted above however, “naked
blocks” (blocks of frozen fish that have no external covering) will be covered by these
proposals.
4
It is envisaged that the majority of fishing vessels that pack and freeze product at sea
are those registered as a Limited Processing Fishing Vessel or those that have a
Registered Risk Management Programme under the Animal Products Act 1999.
Vessels not operating under either regime will not be affected by the proposals,
although the chief executive will have the ability to require additional vessels to
comply with the requirements.
Background
5
The reporting framework set out in the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 (‘the
Reporting Regulations’) is a critical tool with which MFish collects information for
use in assessing the state of New Zealand’s fishstocks and enforces the rules
associated with the utilisation of those fishstocks. The reporting framework is
underpinned by the Recordkeeping Regulations which prescribe the required
documents on which reporting is based.
6
The Reporting Regulations currently require that catch of all species other than
scallops and Foveaux Strait dredge oysters be recorded in greenweight kilograms on
monthly harvest returns, which are the returns used for catch balancing purposes.
Greenweight is the weight of the fish before any processing commences and before
any part is removed. It is important for the integrity of the quota management system
(‘QMS’) that the reporting of catch is accurate.
7
The responsibility for determining the greenweight of any fish rests with the licensed
fish receiver (‘LFR’). This is straightforward when fish is landed “green” since the
catch has simply to be sorted by species and weighed. However, frozen fish landed
by factory vessels is normally processed and packed before landing. The Conversion
Factors Notice provides an official ratio for use in converting the weight of processed
fish landed to greenweight.
8
Aside from providing the conversion factors, the current regulatory framework is not
prescriptive about how either LFRs or MFish determine the greenweight of fish
packed and frozen at sea. It does not provide guidance on how to allow for the water
glaze (applied to the fish to prevent it drying out), packaging, or other additives that
form part of the gross weight of the landed catch. The Ministry is concerned about
inaccuracies in reporting catch (which may amount to some tonnes of fish per
landing), while the industry has concerns about (i) the absence of a level playing field
between operators; and (ii) uncertainty over the Ministry’s approach to prosecution
for perceived offences.
131
9
Issues surrounding the determination of greenweight for fish packed and frozen at sea
have been troublesome for some years. Ways of resolving these issues have been
under discussion by a joint industry/Ministry working party for over a year, and an
agreed position was finally reached in March 2005. The proposals below are based on
this agreement.
10
An initial discussion paper was released in April 2005. Feedback from industry
representatives indicated significant concerns with this paper. The Ministry agreed to
review its proposals and formally release a revised Initial Position Paper.
Problem Definition
11
Fish that is packed and frozen and at sea presents some unusual difficulties for
inspecting fishery officers and LFRs. These difficulties are:
a)
It is difficult to pack fish to a predetermined weight, so the weights of cartons
of fish are normally quite variable. It is therefore necessary to weigh a large
sample of cartons from each product line to determine a reliable average gross
weight. The question of how many cartons must be weighed is a matter of
frequent dispute;
b)
It is often difficult in practice to identify the cartons belonging to a particular
product line, since most fish cartons look alike. Labelling requirements
currently vary depending on the intended destination of the product and the
type of vessel. For each carton fishery officers need to know the species,
landed state, net weight and packing date of the contents. It is inefficient to
have to determine this by opening every carton;
c)
Further difficulties for identification are introduced when fish are frozen into
“naked blocks”. These are rectangular blocks of fish product, usually encased
in a layer of ice but without any other form of packaging or wrapping. At
present these blocks are not covered by the definition of “container” in the
Recordkeeping Regulations and are therefore exempt from labelling
requirements;
d)
Frozen fish is frequently glazed with either seawater or freshwater. This glaze
is applied before packing, and serves as a coating to prevent freezer burn. It is
not possible to ascertain the amount of glaze applied without thawing the
product, which will destroy its export value. Additionally, there is as yet no
straightforward means of determining the amount of glaze after landing.
Operators often make a deduction for glaze either using a standard allowance
or using vessel records; and
e)
Additionally, some fish products contain additive solutions (anti-oxidants,
sodium-tripolyphosphate or gelling agents). These are absorbed into the
product, and it is not possible to ascertain by inspection whether they are
present, or if so in what quantity. The legislation is currently silent as to
whether or not these additives are a part of the landed state for the purpose of
calculating greenweight. Practice varies between LFRs, with some making
deductions from the gross weight for these additives and others including them
in the gross weight.
132
12
Due to the inherent difficulties in determining actual weight of fish that has been
packed and frozen at sea, LFRs therefore have difficulties recording and reporting the
greenweight of fish received. The greenweight is determined from the actual weight
and multiplied by a conversion factor where applicable. Greenweight is the basis for
the QMS, where catch is reported and balanced against annual catch entitlement.
13
These issues create potential inaccuracies in reported catch, which may undermine the
integrity of the QMS.
Options for Management Response
14
Non-regulatory options include the “do nothing” option or development of an Industry
Code of Practice. Industry recently attempted to develop a Code of Practice, however
a consensus could not be reached. Industry did agree however to collaborate with the
Ministry on developing a standard.
15
MFish therefore considers that several regulatory amendments are necessary to give
effect to the industry/Ministry working party agreement. The proposed amendments
are:
a)
To amend the Commercial Fishing Regulations to require all commercial
fishers packing and freezing fish at sea to mark the containers in which the fish
are packed with a species identifier (common name or scientific name or
species code), landed state, net weight, packing date and vessel identifier
(name or number). References to common name, scientific name, species
code, landed state and container type are references to the reporting codes in
Schedule 3 of the Reporting Regulation.
b)
As a consequence regulation 19(6) of the Commercial Fishing Regulations is
to be revoked, as it will be superseded by the proposed amendment. These
amendments specifically address the problem identified in paragraph 11(b);
c)
To amend regulation 4 of the Recordkeeping Regulations to require
commercial fishers packing and freezing fish at sea to keep records of
packaging weights, and to produce these on demand to any fishery officer.
This amendment will assist both fishery officers and LFRs to determine actual
weight;
d)
To amend the definition of “container” in regulation 2 of the Recordkeeping
Regulations to make it clear that “naked blocks” of frozen fish are containers
for the purpose of recordkeeping and labelling. The definition of “naked
blocks” will exclude individual fish.
e)
Labelling of “naked blocks” is not difficult as some vessels currently freeze
paper labels into the ice coating of these blocks now. This amendment
addresses the problem identified in paragraph 11(c);
f)
To amend regulations 12 and 13 of the Recordkeeping Regulations to make it
clear that actual weight rather than net weight is required to be recorded on
purchase tax invoices and unloading dockets;
133
g)
To amend regulation 13 of the Recordkeeping Regulations 1990 to ensure that
container numbers and type are required to be recorded on purchase tax
invoices. Reference to container type is a reference to the reporting codes in
Schedule 3 of the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001;
h)
To amend regulation 2 of the Recordkeeping Regulations to introduce a
definition of the term “product line”, being a set of containers from the same
landing, all containing the same net weight of fish and containing fish of the
same species and landed state. This amendment addresses the problem
identified in paragraph 11(b);
i)
To amend the Conversion Factors Notice to make it clear that additives and
absorbed water are part of the landed state for the purpose of reporting
weights. It is also proposed to amend regulation 13 of the Fisheries
(Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 to allow an LFR to deduct any allowance
in weight made for added polyphosphate solutions when completing a
purchase tax invoice. These amendments addresses the problem identified in
paragraph 11(e).
16
MFish has considered the issue of allowing vessel specific glaze ratios where more
than 2% glaze is used on a particular vessel or class of vessel. However the Fisheries
Act 1996 does not currently contain a provision to provide regulatory support for this
measure and it would be at least two years before the Act could be amended
accordingly. In the interim the Ministry considers the best option may be a
classification of vessels into classes, for which appropriate glaze ratios can be
specified in regulation. The Ministry welcomes submissions on the potential
classification of vessels using different glaze ratios.
17
The Ministry also proposes to introduce a new “administrative” regulation to specify
how fishery officers will determine the actual weight of a product line of frozen fish.
In the absence of proof to the contrary this calculation will be deemed to be correct.
The details in the proposal are slightly adapted from the Canadian Consumer
Packaging and Labelling regulations. The proposed new regulations are contained in
the Appendix to this paper and address the problems identified in paragraphs 11(a)
and 11(d).
Relationship to Food Safety Authority labelling regulations
18
The New Zealand Food Safety Authority (FSA) is the agency responsible for
administering the legislation relating to primary processing of animal products. They
are also the controlling authority for imports and exports of food and food-related
products. The primary statute is the Animal Products Act 1999 and there are several
regulations and notices issued pursuant to that Act that are relevant to fishing vessels
that pack and freeze product at sea.
19
The Animal Products (Regulated Control Scheme – Limited Processing Fishing
Vessels) Regulations 2001 apply to vessels that carry out limited processing
operations of fish material at sea [regulation 4(1)] where:
•
Any of the fish material or fish product is intended to be exported for human
consumption as New Zealand product;
134
20
•
That fish material or fish product is not be delivered to an onshore primary processor,
other than solely for storage or transport (or both); and
•
That fish material has been harvested from or is deemed to have been harvested from
within New Zealand fisheries waters.
Fishing vessels covered by these Regulations are required to label product in
accordance with the Animal Products (Specifications for Limited Processing Fishing
Vessels) Notice 2005. Clause 38 of that Notice states that labelling must be provided
on transportation outers and must state:
a) The fish material or fish product name or description; and
b) Storage directions, where necessary to maintain the fish material as suitable for
processing or fish product as fit for intended purpose; and
c) Lot identification (except that this requirement is optional if the application of lot
identification to the retail packaging is a mandatory requirement under other
legislation and that legislation is complied with); and
d) The scientific name of the fish as specified by the Director-General in clause
32(3)(d) of the Animal Products (Specifications for Products Intended for Human
Consumption) Notice 2004.
21
Vessels that carry out further processing, such as filleting or surimi production must
carry out those operations under a registered risk management programme. Vessels
operating under a registered risk management programme are subject to the Animal
Products (Specifications for Products Intended for Human Consumption) Notice
2004. Part 7 of that Notice deals with labelling and clause 32(3) states that that
labelling must be provided on transportation outers and must state:
a) The animal material or animal product name or description; and
b) Storage directions, where necessary to maintain the animal material as suitable for
processing or animal product as fit for intended purpose; and
c) Lot identification (except that this requirement is optional if the application of lot
identification to the retail packaging is a mandatory requirement under other
legislation and that legislation is complied with); and
d) In the case of fish product, the scientific name of the fish as specified by the
Director-General;
e) In the case of minced fish, surimi, reformed fish, or multi-ingredient fish products
that have undergone further processing, the scientific name either on the label of
the transportation outer or on the accompanying documentation; or
f) In the case of shucked paua that is intended for canning and is held at
temperatures not exceeding 6°C, that the paua is for canning only in New Zealand.
22
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, which applies to all food sold in
New Zealand and Australia, may also be relevant to fishing vessels packing and
freezing product at sea. If product is exported or further processed the labelling
requirements detailed above cover the requirements of the Food Standards Code. If,
however, vessels produce retail packages for sale on the domestic market in New
Zealand, those packages would need to meet the labelling requirements of the Food
135
Standards Code. This situation will not be discussed further as the FSA is not aware
of any vessels currently doing this.
23
Vessels registered as limited processing fishing vessels or those vessels that have a
registered risk management programme are essentially operating under the same
labelling requirements. In some cases the requirements overlap with MFish’s
proposed requirements (e.g. scientific name). However the requirements are not
sufficient to enable fishery officers to accurately determine actual weight of a product
line. In particular landed state and date of packing are essential to reconcile product
with reporting.
Preliminary Consultation
24
The proposals described here reflect an agreement reached in March 2005 by a
working party established jointly by the Seafood Industry Council and MFish. Prior
to this agreement being reached, industry attempted to develop a Code of Conduct to
address the reporting of weights, but a consensus was not reached on this.
25
Additionally, a meeting was held between Industry and MFish staff on 2 June 2005 to
discuss aspects of the IPP. This amended version of the IPP has been produced after
consideration of several of the issues raised at that meeting.
Costs and Benefits of the Proposal
26
Most vessels packing and freezing fish at sea already meet some of the labelling
requirements for containers. Because of the existing requirements to comply with FSA
regulations any additional labelling requirements can be met with minimal change.
The benefit of the labelling requirements is that all LFRs and fishery officers can
easily ascertain which containers need to be weighed in order to determine and report
greenweight accurately.
27
LFRs are already obliged to determine the actual weight of fish landed in order to
complete the LFR return accurately, so requiring actual weight rather than net weights
on the source documents should impose no additional cost. The benefit is that
purchase tax invoices, catch landing returns and LFR returns should be more easily
reconciled if the statement of weight in all these documents is made on the same basis.
28
The provision of a standard deduction for ice glaze will reduce costs for both LFRs
and MFish since destructive testing of product to determine actual glaze percentages
applied will no longer be necessary. Data accuracy is unlikely to be compromised, as
in practice many LFRs conduct no or only perfunctory glaze tests now. Methods of
glaze testing in use vary widely in reliability. The 2% figure is based on tests
conducted at sea, and is a reasonable industry average.
29
In most cases, additives (e.g. gelling agents in surimi) are an integral part of the
landed state and the existing conversion factors have already taken this into account.
However, a small number of vessels add polyphosphate solution to fillets before
packing, and the weight of added solution is not always included in the landed state.
136
30
Codification of a standard method for determining greenweight of fish packed and
frozen at sea should provide certainty to both Industry and MFish, but should not
impose any additional cost on the industry and should simplify enforcement.
31
It is not envisaged that any new offences and penalties will be created. However if it
is necessary to do so, any new offences and penalties will be of a similar nature to
those relating to breaches of the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001.
Administrative Implications
32
Enforcement and administration of the Act will be simplified by altering these
regulations.
Preliminary Recommendations
33
MFish recommends that the Minister:
a)
Agree to amend the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 to
require all commercial fishers packing and freezing fish at sea to mark the
containers in which the fish are packed with a species identifier (common
name or scientific name or species code), landed state, net weight and vessel
number or name;
b)
Agree to amend the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 to require
commercial fishers packing and freezing fish at sea to keep records of
packaging weights, and to produce these on demand to any fishery officer;
c)
Agree to amend the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 to make it
clear that “naked blocks” of frozen fish are containers for the purpose of
recordkeeping and labelling;
d)
Agree to amend the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 to make it
clear that actual weight rather than net weight is required to be recorded on
purchase tax invoices and unloading dockets.
e)
Agree to amend the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 to ensure
that container number and type is required to be recorded on purchase tax
invoices and unloading dockets;
f)
Agree to amend the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 to introduce
a definition of the term “product line”, being a set of containers from the same
landing, all containing the same nominal net weight of fish and containing fish
of the same species and landed state;
g)
Agree to amend the Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Notice 2000 to make it
clear that additives and absorbed water are part of the landed state;
h)
Agree to amend the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 to allow a
licensed fish receiver to deduct any allowance in weight made for added
polyphosphate solutions when completing a purchase tax invoice;
137
i)
Agree to regulate for a standard procedure for fishery officers to use in
determination of actual weight of landed fish.
138
ANNEX ONE OF DECEMBER 2005 IPP–
DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL WEIGHT OF PRODUCT
LINE
Note: This is suggested wording only. The final wording is likely to be slightly different
1
Proposed Regulation A is:
a)
A fishery officer examining any product line of fish packed and frozen at sea
for the purpose of determining whether the actual weight or greenweight of
that product line has been recorded or reported in accordance with the
requirements of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act) shall proceed by selecting
and examining a sample from the product line, and/or by examining all the
containers in that product line.
b)
Where a product line contains the number of containers set out in Column I of
Table 1 in the Schedule, the fishery officer shall select from that product line a
number of containers not less than the number set out in Column II of Table 1
of that schedule, and the containers selected shall constitute the sample. A
reserve sample of the same size shall be drawn at the same time.
Comment
All testing will be carried out on the samples to determine compliance of the
product line. Fishery officers may take larger samples if this is felt to be
necessary, but additional samples should seldom be required. The samples
must be selected from the product line at random in accordance with generally
accepted statistical sampling practice.
2
c)
The fishery officer shall weigh all containers in a sample.
d)
The average gross weight of the containers sampled from a product line shall
be the gross weight of the sample divided by the number of containers in the
sample.
Proposed Regulation B is:
a)
The average actual weight of the sample referred to in Regulation A will be
determined by deducting the container weight from the average gross weight.
b)
If the product line is glazed, and if the appropriate landed state code for this
fish product is GRE, GUT, HGU, HGT, HGF, DRE, DSC, DVC or TEN the
average actual weight of the sample shall be deemed to be 98% of the weight
calculated in B(a).
c)
Any additives in the product are deemed to be part of the processed state and
no deductions may be made from the actual weight of the sample. However, if
sodium tripolyphosphate or sodium hexametaphosphate solutions have been
added to either fillets or mince (as defined in the Fisheries (Reporting)
Regulations 2001), and the product is clearly labelled as containing these
139
additives, the average actual weight of the sample shall be deemed to be 96%
of the weight calculated in B(a).
Comment
Polyphosphate solutions are sometimes added to fillets and mince and cause a
substantial increase in weight of the processed state. It is impossible to
determine the amount of polyphosphate added without destructive testing, but
an allowance of 4% for added weight would meet current industry practice. It
is not anticipated that this deduction would be claimed fraudulently since the
addition of polyphosphates reduces consumer acceptance of the end product.
Additional labelling is required so the fishery officer can identify the product
which has had a polyphosphate solution added.
3
Proposed Regulation C is:
a)
A fishery officer shall determine the actual weight, and where appropriate the
greenweight, of a product line by applying the following formulae:
Actual weight = A x N
Greenweight = A x N x C
Where: A = the average actual weight of the sample
N = the number of containers in the product line
C = the conversion factor specified in the Fisheries (Conversion
Factors) Notice 2000 or in a certificate issued by the chief
executive under section 3A(3) of the Fisheries Act 1983 or
section 188 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
Comment
Note that the Conversion Factors Notice simply provides an official ratio for
calculating greenweight and does not apply to all species or to all product
states. The wording “where appropriate” is used here to indicate that in
circumstances where there is no applicable conversion factor the greenweight
formula is not to be used.
b)
4
If the product line comprises fish frozen and packed whole, the conversion
factor shall be 1.00.
Proposed Regulation D is:
a)
If an actual weight recorded or reported for a product line from which a
sample was taken is less than the actual weight calculated from the formula in
Regulation C(a) the amount of the deficiency shall be calculated by
subtracting the actual weight recorded or reported from the actual weight
calculated from the formula in Regulation C(a) .
b)
A statement of actual weight for a product line in a record or return shall be
lawfully recorded or reported if and only if the actual weight recorded or
140
reported is greater than or equal to the actual weight calculated from the
formula in Regulation C(a) less the sampling tolerance.
c)
The sampling tolerance shall be calculated from the formula:
Sampling tolerance = N * s(t/√n)
Where: n = the number of containers in the sample
N = the number of containers in the product line
t = the value determined from Table 2 the Schedule
s = the standard deviation of the sample
d)
The standard deviation of the sample shall be calculated from the formula
s=
∑ ( x − A)2
(n − 1)
Where: n = the number of containers in the sample
∑(x-A)2 = the sum of the squared differences between the mean actual weight
of the sample and the actual weight of each container in the sample.
e)
However, where all the containers in a product line are weighed no sampling
tolerance shall apply.
Comment
A product line is required to contain no more than the declared quantity of
fish. The formulae above allow a tolerance to reflect the fact that the actual
quantity of fish is being estimated from a sample, and that there is therefore
some uncertainty associated with the estimate. When all containers are
weighed, there is no uncertainty and no need for a sampling tolerance.
5
Proposed Regulation E is:
a)
If a statement of greenweight in a purchase tax invoice or any return for a
product line from which a sample was taken is less than the greenweight
calculated from the formula in Regulation C(a) the amount of deficiency shall
be calculated by subtracting the greenweight recorded or reported from the
greenweight calculated from the formula in Regulation C(a).
b)
A statement of greenweight for a product line shall be lawfully recorded and
reported if and only if the greenweight recorded or reported is greater than or
equal to the greenweight calculated from the formula in Regulation C(a) less
the sampling tolerance.
c)
The sampling tolerance shall be calculated from the formula:
Sampling tolerance = N *C * s(t/√n)
Where: n = the number of containers in the sample
N = the number of containers in the product line
141
t = the value determined from the Table 2 the Schedule
s = the standard deviation of the sample
C = the conversion factor specified in the Fisheries (Conversion Factors)
Notice 2000 or in a certificate issued by the chief executive under section
3A(3) of the Fisheries Act 1983 or section 188 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
d)
The standard deviation of the sample shall be calculated from the formula:
s=
∑ ( x − A)2
(n − 1)
Where: n = the number of containers in the sample
∑(x-A)2 = the sum of the squared differences between the mean actual
weight of the sample and the actual weight of each container in the
sample.
e)
However, where all the containers in a product line are weighed no sampling
tolerance shall apply.
Proposed new Schedule:
Table 1: Sample size for determination of greenweight and/or actual weight
Number of containers in product line
2-20
21-128
129-4000
4001 – 8000
8001-12000
12,000 +
Minimum sample size
All containers
One quarter but not fewer than 10
containers
32
64
96
125
Table 2: Table for values of t
Sample size T
10
2.821
11
2.764
12
2.718
13
2.681
14
2.650
15
2.624
16
2.602
17
2.583
18
2.567
19
2.552
20
2.539
21
2.528
22
2.518
Sample size T
23
2.508
24
2.500
25
2.492
26
2.485
27
2.479
28
2.473
29
2.467
30
2.462
31
2.457
32
2.453
33
2.449
34
2.445
35
2.441
Sample size T
36
2.438
37
2.434
38
2.431
39
2.429
40
2.426
50
2.405
60
2.391
64
2.387
70
2.382
80
2.374
90
2.369
96
2.366
100
2.365
142
Sample size T
110
2.361
120
2.358
125
2.357
130
2.356
150
2.352
200
2.345
250
2.341
300
2.339
1000
2.330
Linear interpolation of t values
Where a sample size is selected that is not listed in Column I of this table, and that sample
size lies between 40 and 1000, the value of t will be determined by linear interpolation using
the following formula:
t=a−
(c − e)(a − b)
(c − d )
where :
a = the value of t for the closest sample size below the selected sample size in the table
b = the value of t for the closest sample size above the selected sample size
c = the result of 120 divided by the closest sample size below the selected sample size
d = the result of 120 divided by the closest sample size above the selected sample size
e = the result of 120 divided by the selected sample size
143
Appendix 3 of March 2008 IPP
AMENDMENTS TO REQUIREMENTS FOR
DETERMINING AND RECORDING WEIGHTS OF FISH
PROCESSED AND/OR PACKED AND FROZEN AT SEA
– FINAL ADVICE (MAY 2006)
Background
1
The issue of how to determine and report the weight of fish landed by factory vessels
has been troublesome for some time. When a vessel lands thousands of containers of
frozen fish at a time all parties concerned recognise that it is simply impractical to
weigh every single one. To date however, there has been no regulated or Industryagreed procedure for determining the weight of fish that is packed and frozen at sea.
2
In recognition of the issue a working group consisting of Ministry of Fisheries
(MFish) and Fishing Industry representatives was established. In March 2005, the
working group released its Summary of Agreed Position regarding the determination
of weights of fish packed and frozen at sea. Principles of the agreed position included:
3
4
•
Specifying a regulated procedure to be used by MFish officials when
determining weights of a product line (effectively setting a standard),
including a minimum sample size; and
•
Allowing Industry to have discretion about how they determine the weights of
a product line.
Having a regulated procedure to determine the weights of fish packed and frozen at
sea will:
•
Enable Industry to take a consistent approach to determining the weight of fish
packed and frozen at sea;
•
Increase certainty about the standards Industry need to meet to ensure catch is
being reported accurately; and
•
Improve the efficiency by which MFish can determine the weight of fish
packed and frozen at sea.
To give effect to the working group’s recommendations, MFish developed and
released an Initial Position Paper (IPP) in April 2005. After Industry indicated that
they had significant concerns with some of MFish’s proposals, a revised IPP was
released for consultation in December 2005.
144
MFish’s Initial Proposal
5
In the IPP MFish proposed to amend the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990,
the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 and the Fisheries (Conversion
Factors) Notice 2000. The proposals, as well as their rationale (in italics), were to:
a)
Require that all fish processed and/or packed and frozen at sea is labelled with
species name (common name or scientific name or species code), landed state,
packing date and net weight of the fish along with the identity of the vessel on
which it was packed;
Requiring all containers of frozen fish to be labelled appropriately will assist
fishery officers when determining the actual weight of a product line. There
will be no need for them to open containers in order to ascertain their
contents.
b)
Ensure that “naked blocks” are classed as containers for the purposes of
recordkeeping and labelling;
“Naked blocks” (blocks of fish product without any packaging or wrapping)
are technically exempt from labelling requirements, which are intended to
apply to all landed product.
c)
Consequentially revoke regulation 19(6) of the Fisheries (Commercial
Fishing) Regulations 2001, which will be superseded by the proposed
amendments;
This labelling regulation only applies to containers of frozen fish that are
being transhipped. Once all containers are required to be labelled, the
regulation will become redundant.
d)
Clarify the requirement in the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 to
record actual weight rather than nominal net weight of fish on purchase tax
invoices and unloading dockets;
Net weight (the weight at which the product will be sold) is different from the
actual weight (the weight of fish in its landed state). Actual weight is used to
determine greenweight, which is what MFish’s statutory reporting regime is
based on. Requiring actual weight to be used in the context of purchase tax
invoices and unloading dockets will ensure that information used for
recordkeeping and reporting processes is consistent.
e)
Require Licensed Fish Receivers to record the number and type of containers
on purchase tax invoices;
This requirement will ensure that the final and most accurate count of
containers is the number that appears in the key recordkeeping document.
145
f)
Provide a standard deduction of 2% in weight for ice glaze and provide a
mechanism for additional tolerances for certain classes of vessel that employ
more than 2% glaze;
Providing a standard deduction for fish product that is glazed (coated with
water to prevent freezer burn) will remove the need for destructive sampling
when fishery officers are determining the actual weight of a product line and
will provide consistency for both fishery officers and Industry.
For some vessels the 2% deduction may be inadequate. Future regulatory
amendments involving classifying vessels into classes and specifying
appropriate glaze ratios for those classes will provide a mechanism for those
vessels.
g)
Ensure that additives absorbed by or adsorbed to fish products are treated as
part of the landed state for the purpose of reporting weights;
This amendment will clarify that licensed fish receivers may not make further
deductions for additives (such as wash water) that have already been taken
into account when calculating the conversion factor of a particular landed
state.
h)
Require commercial fishers packing and freezing fish at sea to keep records of
packaging weights;
Actual weight is calculated by deducting legitimate allowances for
components such as packaging from the gross weight. A record of packaging
weight will be necessary for both fishery officers and licensed fish receivers
when determining the actual weight of a product line.
i)
Provide a standard method to be used by fishery officers to determine, on
landing, the actual weight of fish product processed, packed and frozen at sea.
The key recommendation of the working group’s report was to create a
regulated procedure to be used by fishery officers when determining the actual
weight of a product line. It effectively sets a minimum standard for
measurement and calculation of weights in these circumstances. When passed,
Industry can rely on this regulated procedure as the approved method by
which weights are measured.
6
The proposed amendments will provide consistency for both MFish and the fishing
industry when determining the weight of fish that is processed and/or packed and
frozen at sea. There will be a level playing field for operators and the proposals will
also enhance the integrity of the Quota Management System (QMS).
Submissions
7
A full list of submissions is detailed in Appendix One for your information. A copy of
all submissions is also attached as Appendix Two.
146
8
Five submissions were received in total. The overall tone of the submissions was one
of qualified support for the intent of the proposal (to implement the working group’s
agreement) but concern that MFish had gone beyond the original brief with technical
aspects of some of the proposed regulatory amendments.
9
MFish acknowledges that in making the transition from Summary of Agreed Position
to IPP, additional proposals appear to have been introduced that go beyond what was
contained in the working group’s report. However MFish considers that all proposals,
including those not addressed directly in the Summary of Agreed Position, are
necessary to give effect to the working group’s report and will improve the overall
process of determining the actual weight of fish. MFish does not view any of the
additional proposals as onerous or unnecessary.
Key Stakeholder Issues
10
Appendix One contains a detailed analysis of the extensive range of issues raised in
submissions. Most issues are technical in nature. The issues raised by stakeholders
that MFish considers to be the key concerns are detailed below.
Time required for completion of records
11
A key feature of the working group’s report was that Industry would have flexibility
to weigh product after landing for the purpose of determining actual weight.
Submissions expressed concern that the proposals would create a regime where this
flexibility was removed, and vessel operators would be required to record all weights
upon landing, noting the inherent difficulties of weighing product at sea.
12
MFish wishes to emphasise that there will continue to be flexibility to weigh product
after landing.
Proposed labelling requirements
13
The working group’s report recommended that all landed product be labelled with
species, processed state, nominal weight and packing date. In the IPP MFish
additionally proposed that all landed product be labelled with a vessel identifier (name
or number) in order to assist fishery officers in determining the weight of a product
line landed from a particular vessel.
14
Submissions commented that MFish’s proposal went beyond the working group’s
report and would significantly increase labelling obligations. Sanford Limited pointed
out that the vessels that MFish intends to capture under the proposals as a whole are
already required to label product with a vessel identifier under New Zealand Food
Safety Authority (NZFSA) regulations.
15
MFish agrees that requiring a vessel identifier on container labels was not in the
working group’s report but believes that it will assist fishery officers with determining
the actual weight of a product line. MFish also considers that the identifier required by
NZFSA regulations is more than adequate for MFish purposes and will amend the
vessel identifier proposal accordingly.
147
Risk of prosecution
16
Submissions noted that vessel operators would be deemed to be committing offences
for breaching certain aspects of MFish’s proposals e.g. if labels fell off naked blocks
or if they appeared to have under-reported certain product lines.
17
MFish notes that there are no “deeming provisions” in any of the proposed
amendments. Fishers will continue to have statutory defences available to them, for
example taking reasonable precautions and exercising due diligence to avoid a
contravention of a regulation.
18
Additionally, the decision to prosecute or not is a serious one. The merits of each case
are carefully considered before a prosecution decision is made. It is unlikely that such
a prosecution would be undertaken if there was proof that, for example, a label merely
“fell off” a naked block.
Timing
19
Should you agree with the recommendations contained in this paper, MFish will
prepare a paper to be considered by the Cabinet Economic Development Committee
to seek its approval of the relevant regulatory amendments.
20
Should Cabinet approve the new regulations, MFish proposes that they take effect on
1 October 2006. This will give fishing companies and licensed fish receivers
sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments.
Offences and Penalties
21
No submissions commented on proposed offences and penalties. Should you agree
with the recommendations contained in this paper and in the event that it is necessary
to create any new offences, the corresponding penalties will be set in line with
existing policy. Specifically:
•
Offences committed pursuant to the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing)
Regulations 2001 will be liable on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding
$100,000; and
•
Offences committed pursuant to the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations
1990 will be liable on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding $100,000;
Conclusion
22
Many of the issues raised in the submissions relate to relatively minor or technical
aspects of the initial proposals. They highlight situations that may affect a very small
percentage of containers discharged from a vessel (e.g. naked blocks whose labels
have fallen off or under-reporting of small product lines); outcomes that are
statistically possible but very unlikely; or apparent inflexibility in the proposed
regulations.
23
A submission from Sanford Limited suggested that the number issued by NZFSA to
limited processing fishing vessels or vessels operating under a registered risk
148
management plan could be used as a unique identifier on container labels instead of
vessel name or registration number. MFish agrees with this suggestion and has
amended the proposed labelling requirements accordingly.
24
Aside from the submission mentioned in the paragraph above, and two technical
points relating to statistical aspects of the weight-determining procedure (paragraphs
34 and 36 of Appendix One), MFish does not consider that other submissions
necessitate amending the initial proposals. MFish considers that the proposals will
give effect to the March 2005 joint Industry / MFish agreement regarding reporting of
fish processed and/or packed and frozen at sea.
Final Recommendations
25
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Agree that the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 should be
amended to require all commercial fishers processing and/or packing and
freezing fish at sea to mark the containers in which the fish are packed with
species identifier (common name or scientific name or species code), landed
state, net weight, packing date and vessel identifier (name or registration
number under the Fisheries Act 1996 or number assigned by New Zealand
Food Safety Authority to limited processing fishing vessels or vessels
operating under a registered risk management programme pursuant to the
Animal Products Act 1999);
b)
Agree that the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 should be
amended to require commercial fishers processing and/or packing and freezing
fish at sea to keep records of packaging weights, and to produce these on
demand to any fishery officer;
c)
Agree that the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 should be
amended to make it clear that “naked blocks” of frozen fish are containers for
the purpose of recordkeeping and labelling;
d)
Agree that the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 should be
amended to make it clear that actual weight rather than net weight is required
to be recorded on unloading dockets (where practicable) and purchase tax
invoices;
e)
Agree that the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 should be
amended to ensure that container number and type is required to be recorded
on purchase tax invoices and unloading dockets;
f)
Agree that the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 should be
amended to introduce a definition of the term “product line”, which is
considered to be a set of containers from the same landing, all containing the
same net weight of fish and containing fish of the same species and landed
state;
g)
Agree that the Fisheries (Conversion Factors) Notice 2005 should be amended
to make it clear that additives and absorbed water are part of the landed state;
h)
Agree that the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 should be
amended to allow a licensed fish receiver to deduct any allowance in weight
149
made for added polyphosphate solutions when completing a purchase tax
invoice;
i)
Agree that the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 should be
amended to provide regulatory support for a standard procedure to be used by
fishery officers in the determination of actual weight of fish landed by
commercial fishers;
j)
Direct MFish to prepare a paper for the Cabinet Economic Development
Committee to seek its approval to progress the required regulatory
amendments; and
k)
Agree that the Ministry consult with the New Zealand Seafood Industry
Council Limited regarding the draft regulations.
Russell Burnard
for Chief Executive
AGREED / NOT AGREED / AGREED AS AMENDED
Hon Jim Anderton
Minister of Fisheries
/
/2006
150
APPENDIX ONE OF MAY 2006 FAP – SUBMISSIONS
AND MFISH RESPONSES
1
2
3
After the initial release of the IPP in April 2005, submissions commenting on these
proposals were received from:
•
New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd
•
Sanford Ltd
•
United Fisheries Ltd
After the release of the revised version of the IPP in December 2005, submissions
were received from:
•
New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd
•
Sanford Limited
A summary of the key points raised in the submissions is provided below for your
consideration. Submissions will be dealt with concurrently. Aspects of the earlier
submissions that were addressed in the revised IPP do not need to be considered in
this final advice paper.
Requirement to record actual weight on purchase tax invoices and
unloading dockets
4
The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Limited (SeaFIC), Sanford Limited
(Sanford) and United Fisheries Ltd (United) all expressed concerns regarding the
proposal to create a requirement to record actual weight on purchase tax invoices and
unloading dockets.
5
United submits that any amended regulation requiring weight to be included in
unloading dockets should retain the phrase “where practicable”. Sanford also
expresses concern that if the intent of the proposal is to remove the word “where
practicable” from the provision relating to unloading dockets and effectively require
weight to be recorded on landing, this will create significant cost implications.
6
SeaFIC submits that the proposal to record actual weight on unloading dockets should
be removed, and points out the inherent difficulties in weighing fish at sea should
MFish require actual weight to be recorded immediately on landing.
7
Sanford notes that the definition of “weight” in the Fisheries (Recordkeeping)
Regulations 1990 (the Recordkeeping Regulations) refers to net weight in kilograms
and questions whether this may need to be amended.
MFish response
8
MFish notes that it is not proposed to remove the words “where practicable” from
regulation 12(2)(f) of the Recordkeeping Regulations. This means fishers will have
151
the option of recording actual weight on unloading dockets if that information is
available from onboard weighing systems. However if that information is not
available, actual weight will not be required on unloading dockets.
9
Although regulation 13 of the Recordkeeping Regulations can require purchase
invoices to be completed immediately on receipt of the fish by the licensed fish
receiver (LFR), MFish believes there is sufficient flexibility within regulations 12 and
13 of the Recordkeeping Regulations to give the LFR adequate time to weigh fish
before completing the document.
10
When containers are unloaded from a factory trawler, MFish envisages an unloading
docket being completed, with the exception of the actual weight section of that
docket. In situations where an unloading docket has been completed a purchase
invoice is required to be completed “as soon as is reasonably practicable after receipt
of the fish”. The term “as soon as is reasonably practicable” allows LFRs to continue
with the current practice of weighing all product lines unloaded from the vessel.
MFish recognises that this process may take several days.
11
MFish agrees that the definition of weight in the Recordkeeping Regulations will have
to be amended so that the definition relates to actual weight, being the weight of fish
in kilograms in its landed state.
Requirement to record the number and type of containers on both
unloading dockets and purchase tax invoices
12
Sanford questions the proposal to require the number and type of containers on
purchase tax invoices given the existing requirement to record that information on
unloading dockets. They state that it seems an unnecessary administration burden to
require this information to be repeated.
MFish response
13
The rationale for requiring the number and type of containers to be recorded on
purchase tax invoices as well as unloading dockets is that the figure recorded on an
unloading docket is often an estimate of the number of containers unloaded from a
vessel. The final number will not be known until coolstore staff have counted all the
containers and collated the data. MFish believes that requiring the number of
containers to be recorded on purchase tax invoices provides for more accurate
information to be recorded. MFish does not view this proposal as onerous.
Completion of unloading dockets and purchase invoices where the
commercial fisher, the permit holder and the licensed fish receiver are
the same legal person
14
Sanford submits that there is no requirement or obligation as an LFR to complete
purchase invoices when receiving fish caught under jurisdiction of the commercial
fisher permit i.e. when the commercial fisher, the permit holder and the LFR are the
same entity. Sanford cites a High Court decision in support of this argument
(Matijevich v Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 8/3/96, HC Auckland AP14/95
Blanchard J).
152
MFish response
15
The High Court decision cited by Sanford was given at a time when the Fisheries Act
1983 was in force. The Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act) is now in force and contains a
provision that imposes an obligation on an LFR to complete purchase invoices when
receiving fish caught when the permit holder and the LFR are the same person.
16
Section 192 of the Act 1996 states that:
17
19
“(2) No licensed fish receiver shall purchase or otherwise acquire or be in
possession of any fish, aquatic life or seaweed for the purpose of sale unless
the fish, aquatic life or seaweed was-…
18
(b)
Lawfully taken by that person for the purpose of sale in the
person’s capacity as a commercial fisher, where that person has
lawfully kept and completed all records, returns, and other documents
required under this Act as if the commercial fisher and the licensed
fish receiver had been separate persons;”
There is a clear statutory obligation for an LFR to complete unloading dockets and
purchase invoices when the commercial fisher from whom the fish is received and the
LFR are the same entity.
Allowances for of ice glaze and polyphosphate
20
United submits that the proposed standard glaze deduction of 2% is too low. They
believe it should be around 3-4% based on tests that they conducted recently. SeaFIC
mention that there may be a need to periodically update the allowances for ice glaze
and polyphosphate (2% and 4% respectively). They also question the data upon which
the standard allowances are based.
21
SeaFIC make a further point that the variability in the standard deductions is not
considered and that they are treated as exact values in the calculations, like conversion
factors. They also note the possibility of over-declaration of catch, which would
provide inaccurate data for stock assessment purposes.
MFish response
22
At this stage MFish does not intend to amend the proposed standard deduction of 2%.
As detailed in the IPP, a mechanism may be able to be created whereby vessels that
employ more than 2% glaze will be able to obtain different standard deductions. The
mechanism would involve the classification of vessels into classes and specifying
appropriate glaze ratios for those classes by way of separate regulatory amendment.
23
MFish agrees with SeaFIC regarding updates. If data becomes available indicating
that these figures are no longer the best available information, they should be
amended. The proposed 2% glaze allowance was specified in the working group’s
report while the 4% allowance for polyphosphate solutions was provided by MFish’s
compliance investigation services unit. Both allowances represent the best available
information.
153
24
MFish also recognises that, like conversion factors, the allowances will be treated as
exact figures when in reality there will almost certainly be variability. The main
reasons for having conversion factors and standard allowances are to provide certainty
to both Industry and MFish, and to improve the efficacy of the process by which all
parties determine weights. Like conversion factors, standard allowances will be able
to be amended if they are found to no longer be the best available information.
Definition of “product line”
25
United are concerned about the proposed definition of “product line”, being a set of
containers from the same landing, all containing the same net weight of fish and
containing processed fish of the same species and landed state. They mention their
concern with containers that are packed to different weights from the nominal net
weight (termed “various weight” containers) and submit that the definition of a
product line and/or a regulation which specifies the method to be used to determine
actual weight must make provision for “various weight” containers in a line of the
same species and landed state, so that a more accurate actual weight is arrived at.
26
SeaFIC submits that the definition of the term “product line” should read “…..a set of
containers from the same landing, all containing approximately the same net weight of
the fish….”
MFish response
27
With regard to United’s concern, MFish believes that the proposed procedure for
determining actual weight recognises that the weight of containers is inherently
variable and that an appropriate sample size is necessary to provide a statistically
valid determination of the actual weight of a product line. United’s existing
methodology for determining actual weights should also take the natural variability of
container weights into account and should not be based solely on net weights.
28
MFish does not agree with SeaFIC’s suggestion to amend the proposed definition of
“product line” to include the word “approximately”. The term “net weight” (the
weight at which the product will be offered for sale) is the minimum amount of
product that is likely to be in a container. MFish understands that container weights
are variable, but adding the word “approximately” to the proposed definition that also
includes the term “net weight” is not necessary, as the net weight is a fixed amount in
this context.
Labelling of naked blocks
29
SeaFIC believes that labelling of naked blocks (blocks of fish product without any
packaging or wrapping) is not always successful and that labels often fall off as they
are only held on by a thin layer of ice. They submit that naked blocks should not be
included in the definition of container or, if they are, it should not be an offence if
labels become detached.
MFish response
30
MFish understands the inherent difficulties with ensuring labels are successfully
attached to naked blocks. However the joint Industry / MFish working group
154
agreement stated that all landed product would be labelled and MFish sees no reason
to create any exemptions to that part of the agreement.
31
If, as MFish currently proposes, a regulation is created requiring all containers
including naked blocks to be labelled, a corresponding offence will also be created.
However in the event that a fishery officer encounters naked blocks without the
requisite labels, the officer will have to make a determination as to whether an attempt
had been made to label the blocks or not. Fishers have statutory defences available to
them (for example taking reasonable precautions and exercising due diligence to
avoid a contravention), and the merits of each individual case are relevant to any
consideration of whether to initiate prosecution action.
Sampling tolerance for product lines of less than 20 containers
32
SeaFIC state their concern with MFish’s proposal for there to be no sampling
tolerance where a product line consists of fewer than 20 containers. They submit that
due to the large number of product lines potentially unloaded from a vessel it may be
very difficult to weigh all containers in all product lines and request a tolerance for
such product lines.
33
Discussions between SeaFIC and MFish have also highlighted SeaFIC’s belief that
there is likely to be greater variability between weights of containers in small product
lines than in large product lines. They feel that this greater variability adds
justification to their belief that there should be a sampling tolerance for small product
lines. SeaFIC is also concerned that fishers will be committing an offence if a fishery
officer weighs a small product line and determines a weight greater than that reported
by the fisher.
MFish response
34
MFish does not propose to introduce a sampling tolerance for product lines consisting
of 20 containers or less. Estimates of weight based on a sample are an approximation,
and a sampling tolerance is appropriate to reflect the statistical uncertainty. However,
where all the containers in a product line are weighed by a fishery officer there is no
statistical uncertainty, and no need for a sampling tolerance. SeaFIC are effectively
requesting a dispensation to record and report inaccurate weights for small lines of
product. MFish policy remains that LFRs are required to report the weight of all lines
of product accurately. This is a fundamental tenet of the current self-reporting regime
established. Dispensations to this fundamental rule would threaten the integrity of this
self-reporting model.
Statistical aspects of procedure used to determine actual weights of a
product line
35
SeaFIC and Sanford raise various concerns about statistical aspects of the proposed
method for determining actual weight of a product line. In particular, they raise
technical concerns about the interpolation formula provided in the schedule; ask that
the random sampling procedure to be used by fishery officers be codified; and note
that a change to the minimum sample size in Table 1 of the schedule has not been
reflected by a change to the text of the proposed regulations.
155
MFish response
36
The t value is one of the parameters used to calculate the sampling tolerance. The
concern raised by SeaFIC regarding the interpolation formula used for determining
critical values of the t distribution is accepted, and the formula to be contained in the
final regulation will be revised to accommodate large sample sizes. Interpolation
formulae are necessarily a simplification and cannot be expected to give exactly the
same result as a computer programme. They are designed to be useful for people
working in the field with calculators.
37
A random sample is one where every container in a product line has an equal chance
of being selected, and there are several different ways in which such a sample could
be drawn. MFish’s view is that codification of a random sampling procedure is, on
balance, undesirable. The main benefit of a codified procedure is that this would avert
the need to call expert statistical evidence on the sampling protocol used in any
prosecution. The downside is that situations vary, and fishery officers will often have
to choose or adapt a sampling protocol to suit the situation. The validity or otherwise
of the sampling protocol employed by any fishery officer can be challenged by the
vessel operator if any prosecution is undertaken. Specification of, and rigid adherence
to a codified sampling protocol, would greatly increase both the time required during
some inspections and the inconvenience caused to vessel, coldstore and packhouse
operators.
38
SeaFIC’s note regarding an apparent error in Table 1 of the schedule is correct. The
discrepancy between the text and the numbers is a typographical error. MFish is
grateful that this has been drawn to our attention. The table will be revised
accordingly.
Standards and prosecution decision-making
39
The SeaFIC submission expresses a general unease about the concept of using an
estimate based on a random sample to determine the weight of a product line, and
would like more detail specified on how the estimate will be used. The submission
also claims that the flexibility to take a larger sample fails to provide a minimum
standard for industry to meet or exceed since the boundaries of the sampling tolerance
are affected by sample size.
MFish response
40
The requisite standard for Industry to meet or exceed is unchanged by this proposal.
The requirement is, and always has been, to report the weight of the fish product
accurately. The standard has always been that if MFish staff weigh all the containers
of a product line then the weight obtained should be the same as or less than the
weight recorded or reported. In deciding whether to initiate prosecution action where
this is not the case, a discretion is exercised depending on consideration of the merits
of each individual case.
41
The submissions are correct in noting that a sample from a product line that has been
accurately recorded or reported will occasionally fail the test by chance. Identifying a
prima facie breach of the regulations is only one aspect of the situation as a whole,
and other considerations are likely to also be taken into account before a decision as
156
made as to whether prosecution action should follow. An accurate declaration of
weight is unlikely to fail the test at all, and if it does, the failure will be by a small
margin.
Proposed labelling requirements
42
Sanford has significant concerns with MFish’s proposal to require all containers of
fish packed and frozen at sea to be labelled with species name (common name,
scientific name or species code), landed state, packing date, net weight and a vessel
identifier (name or number). Sanford claims that the proposed requirements duplicate
many existing regulations and that the increased labelling obligations will create
additional costs.
43
In particular Sanford state that:
44
•
Regulation 23 of the Recordkeeping Regulations, relating to fish stored on an
LFR’s premises, already requires LFRs to keep records of, amongst other
things, species, state and net weight of the fish.
•
If fish is packaged in containers on the LFR’s premises, those containers are
required to be labelled in accordance with regulation 19 of the Recordkeeping
Regulations (which require common or scientific name of the fish, date of
packaging, and either the name of the LFR or the person or undertaking on
whose behalf the fish was processed and packaged).
•
The drafted regulations need to reflect that they relate only to vessels that
process and freeze product at sea.
•
Containers are already required to be labelled with a Pack House number,
which is unique to every vessel. They believe this number could be used as a
vessel identifier instead of name or registration number.
Sanford is also concerned with MFish’s proposal to revoke regulation 19(6) of the
Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001, which relates to labelling of
containers that are to be transhipped.
MFish response
45
MFish agrees that the proposals will marginally increase fishers’ obligations to label
containers of fish frozen at sea. However one of the main purposes of the joint
Industry / MFish working group was to establish a procedure that will improve the
efficiency by which fishery officers can determine the weight of fish processed and
frozen at sea. The agreement specified that all landed product would be marked with /
identifiable by: species, processed state, nominal weight and packing date. MFish’s
proposal for containers to also be labelled with a vessel identifier will simply improve
the efficiency of the procedure for determining weights.
46
MFish concurs with Sanford’s statements regarding regulations 23 and 19 of the
Recordkeeping Regulations, but does not believe they are relevant given the Industry /
MFish agreement.
157
47
MFish will ensure that the any regulations relating to product labelling will only be
applicable to those vessels that process and/or pack and freeze product at sea, i.e. the
same vessels that have labelling obligations under the Animal Products Act 1999.
48
MFish also agrees in part with Sanford’s claim that containers are already required to
be labelled with a Pack House number. Fish or fish product intended for export must
be labelled in accordance with Overseas Market Access Requirement Notification
(OMAR) 02.67. The Notification applies to both limited processing vessels and
vessels operating under a registered risk management programme. The specifications
in turn require that fish or fish product intended for export must be labelled in
accordance with the New Zealand Fishing Industry Agreed Implementation Standards
(IAIS) 004.1 (any markets other than Australia) or 004.2 (any markets including
Australia).
49
IAIS 004.2 only deals with fish names, however IAIS 004.1 requires outer containers
and retail packs to be labelled with the “official number of the premises which
processed and/or packed the product”. The official number is readily obtained from
the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) website and is unique to every
limited processing vessel or vessel operating under a registered risk management
programme.
50
For MFish’s purposes, the official number assigned by NZFSA to limited processing
vessel or vessels operating under a registered risk management programme serves the
same function as vessel name or registration number in acting as a vessel identifier.
MFish therefore proposes that containers of fish packed and frozen at sea be labelled
with the following: species identifier (common name or scientific name or species
code), landed state, net weight, packing date, and vessel identifier (name or
registration number under the Fisheries Act 1996 or number assigned by New Zealand
Food Safety Authority to limited processing fishing vessels or vessels operating under
a registered risk management programme).
51
MFish believes that there will be no need to retain regulation 19(6) of the Fisheries
(Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001, which requires all containers containing fish
being transhipped to be labelled in accordance with IAIS 004.1. If that fish is intended
for export to any market other than Australia, fishers will still be required to label
containers pursuant to that Standard but under the Animal Products Act 1999 rather
than the Fisheries Act 1996.
Drafting of regulations
52
SeaFIC raise a general concern that although the IPP gives the intent of the proposed
regulatory amendments, the absence of the draft text of the regulation means that it is
difficult to ascertain whether the proposed regulation has unintended consequences.
MFish response
53
MFish notes SeaFIC’s concern and will be careful to ensure that the policy intent of
the proposals is reflected in the subsequent regulation.
54
The process of drafting regulations is generally confidential. However, because of the
technical nature of the proposals MFish believes that it is appropriate for SeaFIC to be
158
consulted during the drafting process. MFish proposes that the Minister agree for
MFish to consult SeaFIC during the course of regulation drafting.
159
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
Regulatory measures relating to procedures for weighing fish packed and
frozen at sea
Executive summary
Aside from conversion factors, the current regulatory framework is not prescriptive about
how either licensed fish receivers or the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) determine the
greenweight of fish packed and frozen at sea. There is no guidance on how to allow for ice
glaze, packaging, or other additives that form part of the gross weight of the landed catch.
The lack of guidance led to the establishment of a joint MFish / Industry working group in
2004. The working group was set up to develop a proposal for a new system for calculating
the weight of fish processed and frozen at sea.
One of the working group’s key recommendations was for a weighing procedure to be
specified in regulation for MFish to use to determine the weight of a product line. That
regulation would also contain provision for reported weights to be treated as under-reported if
less than the weight obtained using the weighing procedure. The Fisheries Act 1996 does not
contain a provision enabling reported weights to be treated as, or deemed to be, underreported. MFish’s preferred option is to have a weighing procedure specified in regulation
that provides guidance on how to allow for all components of the gross weight of containers
of fish that are packed and frozen at sea but does not contain any deeming provisions. MFish
proposes that the procedure would only be required to be used in the event of doubt or a
dispute regarding the reported weight of a product line.
Adequacy statement
This Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by MFish’s Regulatory Impact
Analysis Review Committee and is considered adequate according to the criteria agreed by
Cabinet.
Status quo and problem
The current legislation is not prescriptive about how either Industry or MFish determines the
weight of fish packed and frozen at sea.
Issues surrounding the determination of greenweight of fish packed and frozen at sea have
been troublesome for some years. The lack of legislative guidance has lead to Industry having
concerns about the absence of a level playing field between operators and MFish has become
increasingly concerned about inaccuracies in reported catch. Industry also has concerns
regarding uncertainty over MFish’s approach to prosecution for perceived offences.
MFish considers that the potential for inaccuracies in reported catch could undermine the
integrity of the quota management system (QMS), which relies on accurate reported
information in order to make decisions regarding sustainability. Although inaccuracies in
reported catch may only be marginal, the overall amount of catch reported incorrectly may be
significant due to the volume of fish that is processed and frozen at sea.
160
Objectives
The objectives that the options are measured against are those articulated under section 8 of
the Fisheries Act 1996: “the purpose of this Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability”.
More specifically, the objectives of the proposed regulation are: i) to ensure that landings of
fish processed and frozen at sea are reported accurately in an efficient and cost-effective
manner; and ii) to provide certainty to both the fishing industry and MFish regarding the rules
to be followed when calculating the greenweight of fish that has been processed and frozen at
sea.
Alternative options
Two alternative options to the preferred approach were considered. These were:
•
To require that a weighing procedure specified in regulation be used by all parties
when determining the weight of a product line; and
•
To require MFish to use a specified procedure for determining the weight of a
product line by detailing it in a Code of Practice and ensuring Industry was widely
aware of the existence of the Code of Practice.
The first alternative option, the imposition of a regulated weighing procedure on all parties, is
not MFish’s preferred option as there are a number of ways for operators to determine the
weight of a product line; requiring the use of just one is likely to be costly and inefficient.
Additionally, MFish would never be able to prove or disprove the assertion that the procedure
had been used or not.
The second alternative option, specifying the method to be used by MFish via a Code of
Practice, is not preferred either. Codes of Practice, while valuable, do not have any enhanced
status when viewed by the Courts.
Preferred option
The preferred option is to have a weighing procedure, specified in regulation, which would be
required to be used in the event of doubt or a dispute between parties about the reported
weight of a product line. In reality MFish envisages that parties would almost inevitably be
MFish and a licensed fish receiver or permit holder.
The procedure would enable industry to take a consistent approach to determining the weight
of fish packed and frozen at sea by providing guidance on how to allow for the components
that make up the gross weight of a carton of fish. The procedure would also increase certainty
about the standards that Industry would need to meet to ensure catch is reported accurately as
Industry will be able to rely on the fact that MFish will use the procedure in the event of
having doubt as to the reported weight of a product line. The preferred option is also likely to
impose the least cost on Industry.
Requiring that the procedure only be used in the event of doubt or a dispute will allow MFish
to continue their usual practice of weighing a non-random sample of cartons whilst engaged
in casual inspections. It will also allow Industry to use any method they want to weigh
cartons of fish, provided that a particular method allows the weight to be reported accurately.
161
The proposed regulation will simply set out a methodology for weighing cartons. It will not
declare the weight obtained by using the methodology to be correct. Additionally it will not
explicitly or implicitly deem a reported weight to be incorrect as this is contrary to the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In such an event, any prosecution for misreporting would be
taken under existing regulations.
Having the procedure specified in regulation is also consistent with the working group’s
recommendations.
Implementation and review
The proposal will likely be given effect by an amendment to the Fisheries (Commercial
Fishing) Regulations 2001. If approved by Cabinet the regulatory amendment would come
into force on 1 October 2008.
The implementation of the weighing methodology specified in regulation will not require
specific measures to be taken by Industry in order to comply with that regulation. However, it
is envisaged that the weighing methodology will form part of a wider package of related
measures that will also come into force on 1 October 2008. Some of those regulatory
amendments are likely to require changes to processes on board vessels that pack and freeze
fish at sea. MFish intends to inform all vessel operators likely to be affected by the proposals
of the new requirements once Cabinet has made a decision on this proposal. This timeframe
will give vessel operators sufficient time to make any necessary changes.
MFish intends to monitor the effectiveness of the package of regulations dealing with fish
packed and frozen at sea and will also ensure that compliance resources are allocated to this
area. The regulations can be reassessed if necessary.
Consultation
The proposal resulted from a joint MFish / fishing industry working group that was set up to
examine the issues relating to fish packed and frozen at sea. Development of the proposal has
been ongoing for three years. During the development of the current proposal, as well as the
wider packaged of related regulations, MFish has continued to have direct consultation with
members of the working group as well as the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Limited
and representatives of commercial fishing companies.
MFish has also undertaken two wider consultation processes with fisheries stakeholders
during the preceding three years. Stakeholder comments have been taken into account
regarding the implementation of a weighing methodology as well as the wider package of
related regulations.
MFish has consulted with departments during earlier phases of this process. Preliminary
consultation regarding the current proposal has been undertaken with the Ministry of Justice.
The Ministry of Justice indicated that they believed the proposal would not be inconsistent
with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
162
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - TAGGING SCHEME FOR
SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA
Executive Summary
1
New Zealand is a Member of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern
Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT). CCSBT is actively working towards a catch tracking scheme
incorporating tagging of individual southern bluefin tuna. Such a scheme would help
combat illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing. Length and weight
information for individual fish would also provide valuable scientific data.
2
CCSBT has formally resolved to implement a catch tracking scheme, but has yet to
agree on the detail of such a scheme. However, at the annual meeting in October
2007, Members voluntarily agreed to work towards such a scheme, and agreed it is
desirable for all Members to trial tagging programmes. 24
3
MFish proposes to put in place the framework for requiring every southern bluefin
tuna caught and killed on a commercial vessel to be tagged, weighed and measured.
The requirement would apply to fishers on all New Zealand-flagged vessels (whether
fishing in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone, or on the high seas), and foreign
charter vessels operating in the domestic fishery. The regulatory framework would be
coupled with specific instructions for tagging, measuring, reporting and recording
requirements that would be issued by gazette notice (operative from 1 October 2008).
Such instructions would be modified or updated from time to time as required.
Consultation would occur on such instructions to be issued by gazette notice.
4
Putting the requirement in place in advance of a formal international agreement would
allow time for fine-tuning of the system in New Zealand. It would also signal New
Zealand’s commitment to developing a full catch tracking scheme. Other Members
(including Japan and Australia) have already implemented or are trialling tagging.
5
New Zealand intends to work with fishers on a voluntary basis before 1 October 2008
to trial tagging, to assist in developing appropriate specifications for a New Zealand
domestic tagging regime. MFish understands that the majority of the domestic fleet
already tag individual southern bluefin tuna, generally with a tag of the type used to
tag cattle ears. Therefore trials would focus on developing a consistent method of
tagging, and ensuring the tags used would be appropriate for a wide range of fishery
situations (for example, could withstand freezing to minus 60 degrees Celsius, which
would be necessary for freezer vessels).
6
New Zealand proposes to make any domestic regime compatible with any Australian
tagging regime and, where possible, with the Japanese system currently in place. New
Zealand intends to use the results of its domestic trials to inform discussion on
developing an appropriate tagging regime for all CCSBT Members. This in turn will
help New Zealand to consider the benefits for fishers while contributing to the
sustainability of the southern bluefin tuna fishstock.
24
Report of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.
www.ccsbt.org/
163
7
The status quo is included as an option in this paper. Options for developing a New
Zealand tagging system include requiring weighing and measuring of fish on land, at
Licensed Fish Receivers (LFRs), or requiring fishers to weigh and measure fish at sea.
MFish prefers the former option, because it is more practical, given the difficulties for
smaller vessels that lack equipment for precise measurements at sea. However, other
Members of CCSBT favour the latter option, because it more closely reflects their
own practices. Under either option, provision would need to be made for vessels that
catch southern bluefin tuna as an occasional bycatch. In such instances, tagging may
also need to occur upon landing, rather than at sea.
8
Key issues to consider in relation to which tagging scheme to introduce, if any,
include:
•
New Zealand’s international obligations;
•
The importance of controlling fishing for southern bluefin tuna, which is currently
below the biomass that can support maximum sustainable yields. While New
Zealand’s domestic fisheries already have a number of controls in place, there is a
need to support additional measures that would be applied across the fleets of all
CCSBT Members, in order to monitor the international market for this species.
•
The timing of the proposal (i.e. the need for regulations at this time);
•
The need to ensure the tagging system is practical and suits the characteristics of
the New Zealand fleet.
•
How the proposal may meet with the purposes and principles of the Fisheries Act
1996.
9
MFish intends to work with fishers to ensure the tagging system is as practical and
cost effective as possible. While some changes to fishing practices will be required,
especially under Option 3, MFish considers the impacts on fishers can be minimised.
10
MFish is particularly interested in hearing from fishers about the relative merits of
Option 2 (weighing/measuring at the LFR) or Option 3 (weighing/measuring at sea).
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
11
This IPP has been deemed significant and a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has
been produced. This RIS has been reviewed by the Ministry of Economic
Development’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Unit.
The Issue
12
At present, a CCSBT Trade Information Scheme is used to collect data and monitor
trade of southern bluefin tuna. The Trade Information Scheme also deters some IUU
fishing, by effectively denying access to markets for southern bluefin tuna not
accompanied by the relevant documentation.
164
13
Members of CCSBT are currently considering further development of this scheme. In
particular, coverage is likely to increase from exported tuna to all tuna (including that
which is traded domestically). Such a scheme would likely involve tagging of each
southern bluefin tuna that is commercially caught and killed. Weight and length
information would be recorded for each fish.
14
For high value species such as southern bluefin tuna, the risk of IUU fishing is high.
In CCSBT, the management objectives of requiring commercial fishers to tag each
southern bluefin tuna are to:
•
increase the precision of estimates of total catches;
•
provide a tool to identify unlawful catch on the international market; and
•
provide length and weight information for individual fish for the CCSBT science
process.
15
These objectives are achieved by being able to identify fish that have been caught
legitimately (and blocking market access for other fish). Fishing that is IUU does not
provide data to be used in stock assessments, so jeopardises the information base on
which management decisions are made. IUU fishing also puts the sustainability of the
fishery at risk, because it is generally in excess of the global catch limits agreed
amongst Members of CCSBT. The inclusion of length and weight information for
individual fish in the catch of southern bluefin tuna would substantially increase the
power of stock assessment models.
16
CCSBT has not formally resolved for Members to implement a catch tracking scheme
involving tagging. As such, New Zealand does not yet have any formal international
obligation to implement a tagging scheme. New Zealand’s domestic fishery is
managed under the quota management system. Adequate data on southern bluefin
tuna catches in New Zealand waters is already collected through domestic reporting
and research.
17
MFish does not consider any additional risk to sustainability within New Zealand
waters would arise because of failure to implement a tagging system at this time.
However, the implementation of a tagging system should provide detailed data on
individual fish that will improve the quality of data available for the science process
and potentially reduce the current costs of sampling this fishery.
18
New Zealand is concerned about IUU fishing of southern bluefin tuna. MFish
considers that a tagging regime would assist in addressing IUU fishing, and help
ensure that the New Zealand fleet is complying with New Zealand’s commitments to
the CCSBT and the sustainability of southern bluefin tuna.
19
MFish is putting forward options to introduce a tagging requirement because it will
bring New Zealand into line with other Members of CCSBT, and enable rapid
implementation of any CCSBT decision (or unilateral implementation in the absence
of an agreed CCSBT-wide scheme). Japan implemented a tagging system for its
fishery in April 2006. Australia also intends to implement a catch tracking scheme
that would include tagging of individual fish.
20
Introducing a tagging requirement at this time will also allow for more extensive
trialling of tagging before a scheme is introduced across the Commission. This would
165
allow New Zealand to provide feedback on the development of a scheme that is most
likely to meet the needs of New Zealand fishers.
21
Once CCSBT makes a resolution on a catch tracking scheme, other regulatory
changes are likely to be required (for example, controls to ensure no transfer or sale of
southern bluefin tuna without a tag occurs; and a revision to the current trade
information scheme documentation). The document on Guidelines for CCSBT Tags
(Attachment 9 of the Report of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the CCSBT; see
Appendix Two) provides further information on possible components of a
comprehensive tagging scheme.
Summary of Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
22
No regulatory requirements for commercial fishers to individually tag, measure and
record every southern bluefin tuna they catch and kill. However, MFish intends to
work with fishers on a voluntary basis to trial and develop an appropriate tagging
regime. Trials will occur before 1 October 2008.
Options 2 and 3
23
Both Options 2 and 3 propose changes to:
•
the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001, to require fishers to tag
each southern bluefin tuna they catch and kill;
•
the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990, to require fishers to record
individual length and weight measurements for every southern bluefin tuna they
catch and kill, along with such other relevant information as the tag number and
the number of the corresponding catch effort form.
•
the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 to require fishers to report the
information described above to the Ministry of Fisheries within a specified
timeframe.
•
provisions for NZ-flagged vessels fishing on the high seas
•
provisions to prohibit trade and domestic sale of southern bluefin tuna not tagged
and accompanied by relevant documentation
•
offences and penalty provisions under Regulations 85 and 86 of the Fisheries
(Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001; Regulation 28 of the Fisheries
(Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990; and Regulations 42 and 43 of the Fisheries
(Reporting) Regulations 2001
24
Tags would be clearly identifiable as southern bluefin tuna tags.
25
Under either Option 2 or 3, provision would need to be made for vessels that catch
southern bluefin tuna as an occasional bycatch. In such instances, tagging would need
to occur upon landing, rather than at sea. LFRs would supply the tag, and would
166
weigh and measure the fish. Fishers would be required to report this information to
MFish as outlined above.
Option 2 – MFish preferred option: require commercial fishers to tag and
record every southern bluefin tuna caught and killed; individual fish to
be weighed and measured either by commercial fishers or by Licensed
Fish Receivers upon landing
26
Require all commercial fishers subject to New Zealand’s jurisdiction to individually
tag each southern bluefin tuna within a defined time period from the time they killed
the fish. Fishers would be required to record length and weight of each tagged fish,
along with the unique identifying number of the tag. The MFish preferred option
(Option 2) is to allow measurement and recording of individual lengths and weights of
tagged fish to occur at the LFRs to which the fish is landed, rather than by fishers on
board the vessel.
27
The option would also be available for freezer vessels to measure and weigh fish at
sea.
28
It is proposed that fishers would be required to report this information to MFish
within the same timeframe as other reporting requirements (i.e. by the 15th of the
following month), unless otherwise specified.
29
LFRs would be required to furnish information to fishers for the completion of tag
reporting forms (i.e. length and weight information).
Option 3 – require commercial fishers to tag, measure and record every
southern bluefin tuna caught and killed
30
Require all commercial fishers subject to New Zealand’s jurisdiction to individually
tag each southern bluefin tuna within a defined time period from the time they killed
the fish. Commercial fishers would be required to record at sea the length and weight
of each tagged fish, along with the unique identifying number of the tag.
31
It is proposed that fishers would be required to report this information to MFish
within the same timeframe as other reporting requirements (i.e. by the 15th of the
following month), unless otherwise specified.
Rationale for Management Options
32
Options to require tagging of southern bluefin tuna are proposed under section 297 of
the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act), which allows for the creation of relevant regulations.
33
For CCSBT, the fisheries management objectives of tagging are:
•
as an integral component of a monitoring, control and surveillance system, to
enable ready identification of legitimately caught fish, and reduce incentives for
IUU fishing to occur;
•
to contribute to overall fishery sustainability by helping ensure global catch limits
are not exceeded as a result of IUU fishing; and
167
•
to improve available information on stock structure (i.e. the distribution in the
catch of fish of different sizes), as an important input into stock assessment.
34
New Zealand has been a Member of CCSBT since the Commission came into effect
in 1994. CCSBT’s objective is to ensure, through appropriate management, the
conservation and optimum utilisation of the global southern bluefin tuna fishery. 25
35
The fisheries management objectives for New Zealand to implement tagging of
southern bluefin tuna at this time are:
•
to improve available information on stock structure, as an important input into
stock assessment;
•
to ensure all New Zealand catches of this valuable fishstock are accounted for.
•
To ensure the sustainability of southern bluefin tuna
36
Key factors when considering the management options include the need for and
timing of a tagging system for southern bluefin tuna. MFish considers there are
advantages to introducing the requirement now, despite the lack of a formal
international agreement to do so at this stage. The next annual CCSBT meeting will
occur in mid October 2008. The focus of that meeting will be seeking agreement on a
binding resolution establishing a catch tracking and tagging system. MFish expects
such a decision in 2008 or 2009.
37
Introducing the requirement now could impose costs on commercial fishers that could
otherwise be deferred for a year or two. However, introducing tagging would
demonstrate New Zealand’s commitment to deterring IUU fishing in the southern
bluefin tuna fishery. Further, it would enable New Zealand to implement an
anticipated Commission decision more rapidly. It would also provide opportunities to
participate in fine-tuning of any overall catch tracking system, based on a longer
period of trials and information and participation from stakeholders.
38
Regulations allowing for commercial fishers to tag southern bluefin tuna could be put
in place for 1 October 2008. MFish proposes that the regulations include a general
requirement for fishers to tag, accompanied by more detailed instructions to be issued
by the Chief Executive by gazette notice from time to time, as required. Such
instructions would be consulted upon, and would be implemented from 1 October
2008.
39
This approach would allow New Zealand to unilaterally implement a domestic
tagging system at this time (while working with other CCSBT Members such as
Australia to ensure as much consistency as possible). The specifications in gazette
notice could subsequently be modified, for example as a result of a formal resolution
from CCSBT, or following more work with other Members. Stakeholders would be
consulted on amendments to the specific instructions to be issued by gazette notice.
25
Article 3 of the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (www.ccsbt.org/)
168
40
Impacts on fishers could include:
•
additional logistic requirements (i.e. the need to obtain approved tags in advance
of fishing, or follow the requirements to obtain a post-catch tag if southern bluefin
was caught as a bycatch);
•
additional time required to process each fish;
•
the need to record and report an additional reporting form (although the form will
be kept as simple as possible); and
•
potentially the need to obtain the necessary equipment to accurately weigh fish on
board their vessel (Option 3 only).
41
Costs are likely to be minimal for fishers who catch southern bluefin as an occasional
bycatch. If fishers land the fish, they would be required to obtain a tag from the LFR
and fill in the relevant document. If the fish is eaten on board the vessel, fishers
would nonetheless be required to report the individual length and weight of the
southern bluefin tuna caught.
42
LFRs might also incur some administration costs associated with the scheme,
although MFish understands that most fishers already tag individual southern bluefin,
and LFRs already record and pass information about tagged fish on to fishers. The
proposal would effectively standardise and formalise a system that is operating
already, and in time ensure it is consistent with what other Members of CCSBT are
doing.
43
Over the longer term, costs of a tagging scheme depend on decisions yet to be made
about scheme administration. For example, a centrally-administered scheme where
the CCSBT Secretariat distributed tags to Members could attract cost savings. The
Secretariat has estimated costs of around 10 cents Australian per tag in this scenario.
Smaller orders of tags could attract higher per tag prices (up to 60 cents per tag). Cost
would also depend on the type of tag used (for example, conventional or machinereadable). MFish anticipates that approximately 6000 tags would be required
annually for the New Zealand fishery.
44
Administration of the scheme would also have cost implications, again depending on
the final form the scheme takes. Costs would include tag administration costs (i.e.
distribution to fishers and LFRs); development of reporting forms; and establishing
and maintaining a database to record information (including data entry costs). MFish
expects these costs would be relatively low in the short term, because of the relatively
low volume of catches in the fishery (the catch limit is 420 tonnes, but will move to
1000 tonnes over time). Moreover, some aspects of the scheme would involve
modification to existing processes (i.e. the trade information scheme), rather than
entirely new requirements.
45
Additional costs would be involved under Option 3, because individual fishers would
be required to buy equipment to weigh and measure fish on board their vessels.
Under Option 2, LFRs would already possess the necessary equipment.
46
Over time, the costs of tag production and administration of the scheme will be cost
recovered.
169
Consultation
47
Some discussion has already occurred with commercial fishers likely to be affected.
MFish is aware that many fishers already tag individual southern bluefin tuna (for
example in order to record relevant information for markets). The recording of
individual fish weights is also a standard market practice. Further discussion and
trials will occur in relation to effective methods for tagging (e.g. materials, location of
tag).
48
If Option 2 or 3 is chosen, all surface longline fishers will be contacted in writing to
inform them of the new requirements. Other interested parties (such as LFRs, and
fishers who may take southern bluefin tuna as a bycatch, such as squid fishers) will
also be notified of any requirements resulting from the regulatory measures.
49
MFish invites fishers to provide additional information on the logistics of tagging
every southern bluefin tuna caught and killed. MFish is particularly interested in
hearing from fishers about the relative merits of Option 2 (weighing/measuring at the
LFR) or Option 3 (weighing/measuring at sea). MFish also seeks the views of LFRs
on the contribution required by them under Option 2.
50
Further, MFish invites fishers to provide examples of the information they currently
record as part of existing tagging initiatives, and which may be incorporated into
recording and reporting requirements if appropriate.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
51
Under the status quo, commercial fishers must record their catches of southern bluefin
tuna on catch reporting forms, such as tuna longlining catch and effort returns.
Information collected includes species caught, processed weight, and number of fish.
Catch and effort returns are provided to MFish on a monthly basis.
52
Exports of southern bluefin tuna must be accompanied by a completed CCSBT
Statistical Document. The document includes details of the shipment such as name of
fishing vessel, gear type, area of catch, and dates. Members of CCSBT do not allow
import of southern bluefin tuna that lacks the correct documentation. Because the
biggest market for southern bluefin tuna is Japan, which is a Member of CCSBT, the
incentive for fulfilling this requirement is high.
53
The existing system is considered to be adequate at tracking trade of southern bluefin.
However, because it does not cover domestic catches, only a portion of the entire
fishery is monitored. For example, Japan has substantial domestic catches that are not
covered under the existing scheme. New Zealand also has some domestic sales of
southern bluefin, which are not tracked by the Trade Information Scheme (although
the domestic reporting system does provide for validation of catch data through the
provision of separate LFR data).
170
54
Maintaining the status quo is an option at present, because there is no formal
resolution from CCSBT regarding catch tracking that would require tuna tagging.
However, the report from the 14th annual meeting of CCSBT in October 2007
indicates support for further work in this area:
Taking account of the advice of Australia and Japan that they would be
implementing their own
SBT [southern bluefin tuna] CDS [catch
documentation scheme] on a trial basis as interim steps towards development of
a comprehensive CCSBT CDS that includes tagging, and the fact that Japan has
already implemented a tagging system for SBT, the Members agreed that it
would be useful if all Members and Cooperating Non-Members endeavour to
trial SBT tagging programmes, whether individually or in cooperation with one
another.
55
Members also agreed to report back to the Compliance Committee in October 2008 on
the experience of their trial tagging programmes.
56
Whether or not regulations are implemented at this time, MFish will undertake trials
with fishers. The intention would be to have some initial results to feed back to the
Compliance Committee meeting in mid October. Because of the small size of the
fleet that targets southern bluefin, MFish anticipates good participation in voluntary
trials.
Costs
57
New Zealand has already indicated at various meetings of the CCSBT its strong
support for a CCSBT catch tracking scheme, incorporating tagging of individual
fish. 26 Failing to take steps to ensure New Zealand is ready to implement such a
scheme domestically may signal a lack of commitment. Because of the timing of the
annual meetings of CCSBT in October, any formal resolution would take a year to
implement if the framework has not already been put in place. If the framework has
already been established in regulations, then changes to the detail of the requirements
could be rapidly implemented through issue of a new gazette notice.
58
Putting a regulatory framework for in place 1 October 2008 would allow for smooth
transition from trials to full tagging, by the time of the annual CCSBT meeting in mid
October 2008. Members have substantial agreement about the need for and
advantages of a tagging and catch tracking scheme, despite continued discussions
about the details of a scheme. As noted, Japan manages its tagging programme as a
flag state measure rather than a CCSBT-wide programme. MFish considers it an
advantage to be ready to similarly implement a tagging scheme unilaterally or in
association with Australia if agreement cannot be reached on a CCSBT-wide scheme.
Further, the proposed approach would allow transition from a unilateral or bilateral
scheme to a CCSBT-wide scheme if agreed at a later date.
59
Many fishers already have some experience with tagging of individual southern
bluefin tuna as part of their existing practices. MFish considers there is a need for
26
For example, Report of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the CCSBT, October 2007; Report of the Second
Meeting of the Compliance Committee, October 2007; Report of the First Meeting of the Compliance
Committee Working Group, April 2007; Report of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the CCSBT, October 2006.
www.ccsbt.org/.
171
trials to fine tune and coordinate across the fleet. However, the need for trials should
not preclude advantages to be gained from putting in place the regulatory framework
for 1 October 2008. Such advantages include rapid implementation of a CCSBT-wide
scheme, or further refinement of a unilateral or bilateral scheme.
60
Relying on voluntary participation in trials, rather than requiring all fishers to
participate under regulation, may also reduce the ability of trials to highlight aspects
of the scheme that are not workable for all fishers. Fishers who have already had
some experience in tagging fish and are committed to a catch tracking scheme are
more likely to participate in voluntary trials. Other fishers may choose not to
participate in trials. Any difficulties that tagging could pose for those fishers would
not necessarily be identified through voluntary trials. On the other hand, requiring all
fishers to participate by regulation from 1 October 2008 (in combination with
voluntary trials before that point) would maximise coverage of the scheme. Because
the proposal is to update the details of the scheme from time to time by gazette notice,
any major problems that became apparent as a result of tagging could be addressed by
changes to the gazette notice if required.
Benefits
61
The status quo already involves collection of catch and export information.
Additional information on the age and size structure of the fishery is collected by
MFish’s Observer Programme and through individual processed weight data provided
by some major LFRs. Further, many commercial fishers already tag individual
southern bluefin tuna (although this data is not provided to MFish). Commercial
fishers may consider the existing system already provides adequate information for
management. Further, commercial fishers are already familiar with the existing trade
information scheme.
62
Maintaining the status quo would result in no increased costs to fishers. However,
any costs associated with implementing a tagging system are likely to be deferred
only, because a resolution from CCSBT to implement catch tracking is expected in the
next year or so.
63
Under the status quo, individual fishers may choose to cooperate in tagging trials that
could subsequently lead into a more comprehensive catch tracking scheme, although
there would be no requirement for them to do so. This may provide commercial
fishers with greater flexibility.
64
MFish proposes to trial tagging before 1 October under Options 2 and 3 also.
Running voluntary trials for a longer period before implementing a regulated scheme
may allow for greater fine tuning of the system. If initial trials do indicate problems
with the scheme, retaining it as a voluntary process to allow for further testing may be
more cost effective than introducing a scheme for which the details would
subsequently need to be altered by gazette notice.
172
Option 2 – MFish preferred option: require commercial fishers to tag and
record every southern bluefin tuna caught and killed; individual fish to
be weighed and measured either by commercial fishers or by Licensed
Fish Receivers upon landing
Impact
65
Both option 2 and option 3 propose new steps that commercial fishers must take when
they catch southern bluefin tuna. The likely impact of option 2 is lower than option 3
because it provides for greater flexibility in the timing and execution of the
requirements.
66
Under both Options 2 and 3, provision will be made for situations in which a vessel
catches southern bluefin tuna but lacks a tag for it. If any vessel that might catch
southern bluefin tuna as an occasional bycatch were required to have tags available
for tagging the fish, MFish would have to distribute large numbers of tags that would
probably not be required. Southern bluefin tuna is targeted by surface longlining, but
is also an occasional bycatch of target longline fishing for bigeye tuna, and of trawl
vessels. In the 2006-07 fishing year, 11 vessels caught southern bluefin tuna as a nontarget catch, including seven trawl vessels (catch volumes ranged from 50 to 310 kgs).
67
Provision for occasional bycatch is in line with current CCSBT proposals, which
envisage some provision for ‘post catch’ tags. A discussion paper prepared by the
CCSBT Secretariat notes there may need to be exceptions to the general rule that
every fish is tagged immediately upon killing. 27 The Secretariat noted problems could
arise in some bycatch fisheries where vessels rarely catch southern bluefin tuna, and
may not have been issued with any tags. Requiring all authorised vessels to be issued
with tags could result in large numbers of tags being issued to vessels that are not
targeting southern bluefin, creating issues of increased costs, tag management and
security.
68
An Australian catch tracking proposal also provides for unexpected captures. Under
the Australian proposal, if southern bluefin tuna is caught unexpectedly and the vessel
operator does not have necessary catch documentation forms or tags, the vessel
operator must document and tag the catch within three days after landing.
69
MFish considers such a provision would be more effective than providing every
registered vessel that might catch a southern bluefin tuna with tags. The number of
tags required could be limited to a smaller number in a central location, or at several
regional locations. LFRs that receive landings of southern bluefin tuna could request
tags as required, or could hold a limited number in stock. This would make tag
auditing more straightforward, and reduce the risk of tags becoming lost or misplaced.
It would also reduce the risk that a black market in tags could develop (since tags
could potentially be used to disguise the origin of illegally caught fish).
27
Initial CDS considerations (draft 2) (prepared by the Secretariat). 2007. Document number CCSBTCC/0704/04, available at www.ccsbt.org
173
Tagging, measurements, and recording
70
Both Options 2 and 3 will require fishers to tag each southern bluefin tuna they catch
and kill. The requirement would apply to fishers on all New Zealand-flagged vessels
(whether fishing in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone, or on the high seas), and
foreign owned vessels operating in the domestic fishery. Fish that are released alive in
accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Act would not be covered
by the regulations.
71
MFish seeks input on a reasonable timeframe within which catch documentation must
occur. There is not yet any agreement amongst CCSBT Members on this point. The
Australian draft resolution suggested documentation should take place within 18
hours of completing every haul of fish. The timeframe is proposed to give sufficient
time to update the catch document after each set, while ensuring that catch is
documented daily. These provisions will be governed by changes to the Fisheries
(Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990.
72
MFish proposes that the information to be recorded on forms could be limited to tag
number, fish weight and length. A reference could link this information to the catch
effort form on which more detailed information is reported (e.g. trip number). Tag
numbers would also be recorded on any trade documentation that would accompany
southern bluefin tuna exported or sold domestically.
73
The New Zealand domestic fleet is comprised mainly of small vessels that land fresh
product to port at frequent intervals. Trips vary in length but are seldom longer than
7 days.
74
For compliance purposes, it is important for tagging to occur as soon as possible after
fish are killed. This minimises the risk that fishers tag fish only if an inspection
occurs, or tag some but not all fish. However, the argument is less clear in relation to
weighing and measuring of fish, especially if the system allows for initial recording of
estimated weights, followed by a subsequent more accurate measurement.
75
Under Option 2, fishers will be required to tag fish at the time of capture in most
instances, so legitimately caught fish could be identified. Individual lengths and
weights provide additional information that is useful as a further check in ensuring
individual fish can be tracked from capture to market; and for scientific purposes.
76
Measuring fish at a landing facility rather than on the vessel is unlikely to result in any
significant variation in the measurements recorded. Measurements are not considered
likely to vary significantly between capture and landing except potentially in cases
where processing occurs, or the state of the fish is changed (for example by freezing
the fish). The domestic catch reporting system currently allows for catch weights to
be estimated at sea, followed by more accurate measurement on land.
77
MFish considers that the larger scale freezer vessels that target southern bluefin tuna
would have the resources available to weigh and measure the fish at the time of
capture. Rather than landing fresh product, these vessels freeze the tuna and export it
directly to market. For this reason, it would be desirable for weighing and measuring
to occur as fish are caught for this subset of vessels. MFish proposes this as a
requirement under Option 2.
174
78
Other vessels would have the option of weighing and measuring at sea if they wish to.
MFish considers most measurement would occur at LFRs.
Reporting
79
It is proposed that fishers be required to report the information they have recorded in
the same timeframe as is currently in place for catch reporting (that is, by the 15th day
of the following month). This timeframe would make the process as practical as
possible. Changes would be made to the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 to
reflect this requirement.
80
The timeframe for reporting is one of the issues on which Members of CCSBT do not
yet have a consistent position. A draft Australian resolution suggests completed catch
documents shall be submitted to the flag state within 10 days of the first fish recorded
on the document being killed and, in any event, prior to any transfer (including
landing) of fish recorded on the document. However, MFish considers it important
for a catch tracking scheme to be consistent with domestic reporting requirements
(including reporting timeframes) where possible.
81
For an agreed scheme, CCSBT protocols on access to data would apply.
Compliance
82
Compliance with the tagging requirements could be included as part of routine
compliance checks. MFish does not propose additional compliance effort for this
purpose.
83
Most southern bluefin tuna is exported. When a comprehensive catch tracking
scheme involving tagging is finalised, compliance with the scheme will be a condition
for export to Members of CCSBT and other cooperating countries. For this reason,
there will be strong financial incentives for complying with the regulations. MFish
will also work with fishers to ensure the tagging system is user-friendly.
84
However, some problems may arise with mis-reporting of fish, either unintentionally
due to species misidentification, or intentionally in order to bypass the requirements
of the scheme and the QMS. It will be important to maintain the integrity of the New
Zealand monitoring, control, and surveillance regime to ensure national catches
remain within the country allocation.
Costs
85
Direct costs associated with Option 2 are limited in comparison to those for Option 3.
MFish considers the cost to fishers and LFRs would be low, but invites comment on
this aspect of the proposal.
86
LFRs already possess the necessary equipment for weighing and measuring fish.
However, some additional time would be required for this purpose, since weighing
might otherwise be done in aggregate instead of for individual fish. MFish
understands that most LFRs would however already weigh each southern bluefin tuna
individually.
175
87
Because Option 3 is strongly favoured by other CCSBT Members, New Zealand
would need to clearly articulate to CCSBT its rationale for allowing measurement to
occur at a later time, rather than immediately upon kill. This has already been
signalled to CCSBT during discussions about catch tracking that have occurred at
CCSBT meetings during the last several years. 28
Benefits
88
MFish considers Option 2 would achieve the benefits of catch tracking outlined
above, while providing greater flexibility for fishers than does Option 3. MFish
further considers fishers are more likely to comply with option 2, because it is more
practical for them to achieve.
89
Option 2 is likely to help mitigate any problems associated with species misidentification (for example, other species such as Pacific or northern bluefin tuna are
falsely identified as southern bluefin tuna). Under Option 2, LFRs would be more
likely to notice any misidentification, which could be rectified before the fish is
exported.
Option 3 – require commercial fishers to tag, measure and record every
southern bluefin tuna caught and killed
Impact
Tagging, measurements, and recording
90
Under Option 3, fishers would be required to measure and weigh each fish and record
this information alongside the tag number.
91
Option 3 is preferred by Members of CCSBT, but raises potential problems for small
vessels that target southern bluefin tuna, but do not have the ability to accurately
weigh and measure individual fish at sea.
Reporting
92
It is proposed that fishers be required to report the information they have recorded in
the same timeframe as is currently in place for catch reporting (that is, by the 15th day
of the following month). This timeframe would make the process as practical as
possible.
Compliance
93
28
Compliance with the tagging requirements could be included as part of routine
compliance checks. MFish does not propose additional compliance effort for this
purpose.
For example, CCSBT-CC/0704/04: Initial CDS Considerations (Draft 2) (Prepared by the Secretariat) (2007).
176
Costs
94
Under Option 3, fishers would need to have the facilities to tag, weigh, measure and
record every southern bluefin tuna they captured and killed.
95
Forty six vessels recorded landing southern bluefin tuna in the 2006-07 fishing year.
The size of these vessels ranged from less than 20 metres (28 vessels) to greater than
100m (3 vessels). With the exception of four larger freezer vessels (56m), most of the
vessels that caught significant quantities of southern bluefin tuna were 25m or less in
length.
96
Catch volumes varied from 50 kgs to 84 tonnes per vessel, indicating that southern
bluefin is both targeted by fishers, and caught as a bycatch of other fishing operations.
Thirteen vessels each caught less than a tonne of southern bluefin tuna.
97
Almost all vessels targeting southern bluefin tuna are too small to accurately weigh
and measure fish at sea. Most vessels – with the exception of the larger freezer
vessels and one or two others – lack equipment of sufficient sophistication. This is
one of the reasons the existing reporting framework is based on fishers recording
estimated catches at sea, followed by subsequent accurate measurement by LFRs upon
landing. There would be practical difficulties and a high cost for fishers (including
the direct cost of purchasing the necessary equipment, as well as operational costs
related to changing their fishing practices) if they were required to weigh and measure
individual fish at sea. Fishers are invited to provide further information on the costs
associated with this option.
98
Another cost associated with Option 3 is a loss of accuracy if measurements are made
at sea on small vessels, compared to in the stable environment of an LFR.
99
If Option 3 is chosen by the CCBST, options would need to be explored further for
mitigating the problem of impacts on small vessels that are not well-equipped to
weigh and measure individual fish.
100
There is a risk under Option 3 that fishers would nonetheless choose to weigh and
measure the tuna upon landing, rather than at sea. On the water inspections would be
required to detect this type of offending. This is unlikely to be a priority for
compliance officers, so the likelihood of detecting it would be low.
Benefits
101
Option 3 better reflects the system likely to be implemented by other Members of
CCSBT. This is because the vessel characteristics of other Members are better suited
to weighing and measuring at sea (generally larger freezer vessels, staying at sea for
larger periods of time).
102
It is generally accepted that it is desirable to weigh and measure fish at the time of kill
as part of a catch tracking system. A document on Guidelines for CCSBT Tags
(Attachment 9 of the Report of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the CCSBT; see
Appendix Two) outlines that each Member and Cooperating Non-Member should
require the master or operator of each of its vessels to attach a SBT tag to each
southern bluefin tuna at the time of kill. Further, Members and Cooperating NonMembers should require the master or operator of each of its vessels who are issued
177
tags to record the SBT tag numbers attached to southern bluefin tuna, together with
the length and weight of each fish tagged.
103
Likewise, the Australian draft resolution on adoption and implementation of a CCSBT
catch tracking scheme and tagging system proposes that masters or operators be
required to attach a CCSBT tag to each southern bluefin tuna at the time of kill. The
CCSBT tag shall remain on each individual fish until processed. The draft resolution
further proposes that masters and operators should record each SBT killed within 18
hours of completing every haul of fish.
104
Option 3 minimises the risk that the weight of fish may change significantly between
the time it is caught and the time it is measured (for example, through loss of
moisture). However, this risk is not considered to be large.
105
The larger scale freezer vessels that target southern bluefin tuna freeze the fish and
export it directly to market. As such, Option 3 better reflects this practice, because
weighing and measuring would occur at sea. However, Option 2 proposes to allow
for this existing practice, by providing for measurement to occur either at sea or at an
LFR. Option 3 would apply a measure across the whole fleet (weighing and
measuring at sea) that MFish considers is only practical for a small portion of the
fleet.
Statutory Considerations
106
Statutory considerations are outlined in more detail in appendix one. MFish considers
proposals to require tagging of southern bluefin tuna are in keeping with New
Zealand’s international obligations (section 5). The proposals are also in keeping with
the purpose of the Act (section 8) to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources
while ensuring sustainability.
178
Appendix One
Statutory Considerations
107
MFish has considered the followed statutory considerations in relation to the options
in this paper.
a)
Section 5(a) – Application of international obligations: MFish considers
both options 2 and 3 better meet our international obligations under the
Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna than does
maintaining the status quo. Either option allows New Zealand to move
towards a more comprehensive catch tracking scheme, for which New Zealand
has stated its support at various CCSBT meetings. CCSBT has signalled its
intent to develop a catch tracking scheme, and expressed support for Members
to develop and trial tagging systems.
b)
Because there is not yet any formal resolution from CCSBT on catch tracking
or tagging, the status quo is currently consistent with international obligations.
c)
Section 5(b) – Application of Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims)
Settlement Act 1992: the options proposed in this paper are not inconsistent
with the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement
Act 1992.
d)
Section 8 − The purpose of the Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability. Options for requiring fishers to tag
southern bluefin tuna would have some impacts on fishers’ ability to utilise the
resource. For example, the time required for fishers to process each fish would
likely increase, although not significantly. However, the ability of fishers to
harvest their quota would not be constrained. These impacts on utilisation are
balanced by overall sustainability benefits if greater ability to monitor the
stock is achieved amongst Members of CCSBT. Reducing IUU fishing will
potentially improve sustainability in several ways, including through
improving the information base on which decisions are made; and by ensuring
catches are more likely to remain within global catch limits. In turn,
improving overall sustainability of the southern bluefin tuna stock is likely to
improve utilisation in the New Zealand fishery, particularly because New
Zealand is on the outer edge of southern bluefin tuna distribution, and its
fishery is strongly affected by overall stock sustainability.
e)
Section 9 − None of the proposed management options are likely to have any
significant impact on associated and dependent species, biological diversity, or
habitats of particular significance to fisheries management. The proposals are
not likely to increase catches of southern bluefin tuna, or any associated or
dependent species. The proposal could contribute to maintenance of biological
diversity, as part of a broader framework of monitoring, control and
surveillance measures designed to ensure catches stay within agreed catch
limits for southern bluefin tuna. The tagging proposal does not affect habitats
of particular significance to fisheries management.
f)
Section 10 – Information principles: Section 10 requires all persons
exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers conferred or imposed by
179
or under the Act, in relation to the utilisation of fisheries resources or ensuring
sustainability, to take into account the following information principles:
i)
Decisions should be based on the best available information:
ii)
Decision makers should consider any uncertainty in the information
available in any case:
iii)
Decision makers should be cautious when information is uncertain,
unreliable or inadequate:
iv)
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 that Act.
g)
There is some uncertainty about the details of likely impacts on fishers. MFish
is seeking additional information from fishers on the impacts of the tagging
options on their fishing operations, particularly in relation to possible impacts
on time, costs, and the practicality of the proposed options.
h)
There is also uncertainty about the final form an agreed CCSBT catch tracking
scheme will take. However, MFish proposes to deal with this uncertainty
through implementation of a general framework in regulations that would be
coupled with more detailed instructions issued by the Chief Executive and/or
published in a gazette notice. The general regulations could be replaced by
specific regulations at a later date if so required. Any detailed specifications
can be updated by gazette notice, with consultation.
i)
A requirement for commercial fishers to tag southern bluefin tuna would be
made by regulation under sections 297(1)(a)(xi), 297(a)(xii) and
2971(1)(a)(xiii) of the Act.
i)
Section 297(1)(a)(xi) provides for regulations to be made to regulate
the methods, equipment, and devices to be used for determining the
size or weight of any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed;
ii)
Section 297(1)(a)(xii) provides for regulations to be made to regulate
the methods, equipment and devices that may be used to process fish,
aquatic life, or seaweed; and prohibiting the processing of fish, aquatic
life or seaweed otherwise than by that method or by use of such
equipment or devices;
iii)
Section 297(1)(a)(xiii) provides for regulations to be made to regulate
the methods by, or the circumstances under which, fish, aquatic life, or
seaweed may be held, stored, conveyed, or identified, including the use
of any containers, marks, or labels.
j)
Controls on the types of vessels to which tagging would apply can be regulated
under section 297(1)(e), which allows for defining the vessels or classes or
types of vessels to which any regulations are to apply.
k)
Record keeping provisions are regulated under section 297(1)(h), which
allows for prescribing the accounts, records, returns and information that any
person or class of persons may be required to keep or provide.
180
l)
Section 297(1)(n) allows for creating offences in respect of the contravention
of, or non compliance with any regulations made under the Act; and provides
for the imposition of fines.
m)
Under section 297(2)(a) of the Act, the Minister or Chief Executive is
authorised to issue or impose, as the case may be, any authority, approval,
requirement, prohibition, restriction, condition, direction, instruction, order,
permit, notice or circular.
n)
Section 297(2)(b) allows for any regulations made under the section to exempt
any person or species or vessel from compliance with or the application of any
provisions of the regulations; or authorise the Minister or the chief executive
to grant such exemptions as the regulations may specify.
o)
Section 297(3)(b) outlines that regulations made under section 207 may be
applied in respect of New Zealand nationals and New Zealand ships when they
are outside New Zealand fisheries waters.
p)
MFish considers that the proposed changes to the Fisheries (Commercial
Fishing) Regulations 2001, the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001, and
the Fisheries (Recordkeeping) Regulations 1990 fit within the relevant
provisions of section 297.
181
Appendix Two
Guidelines for CCSBT tags (Attachment 9 of the Report of the
Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of
Southern Bluefin Tuna)
General requirements of a SBT tagging system
108
Members and Cooperating Non-Members should require the master or operator of
each of its vessels, and the owner or operator of its farms, to attach a SBT tag to each
southern bluefin tuna at the time of kill. The SBT tag should remain on each
individual fish while the fish carcass remains whole. (A fish remains whole despite
cleaning, gilling and gutting, freezing, removing fins, gill plates and tail and removing
the head or parts of the head. A fish is no longer considered to be whole if it has
undergone processes such as filleting or loining).
109
Members and Cooperating Non-Members should take steps to ensure that SBT tags
cannot be reused.
110
Members and Cooperating Non-Members should prohibit the unauthorised transfer or
sale of southern bluefin tuna without a SBT tag.
111
Members and Cooperating Non-Members should prohibit the unauthorised transfer or
sale of SBT tags.
Specifications for SBT tags
112
Each SBT tag should meet the following requirements:
a)
have a unique pre-recorded tag number, which should be printed on the tag in
an easily readable form, and, if possible, a machine readable bar code;
b)
be able to be securely fastened to southern bluefin tuna;
c)
be non-reusable, tamper-proof and secure from counterfeiting or replication;
d)
be able to withstand at least negative sixty (60) degrees Celsius temperatures,
salt water and rough-handling; and
e)
be food safe.
Record-keeping, reporting and auditing requirements
113
Members and Cooperating Non-Members should record the distribution of SBT tags
to entities authorised to fish for, or farm, southern bluefin tuna.
114
In relation to each tag, Members and Cooperating Non-Members should have systems
to record:
•
•
•
•
•
the tag number;
length and weight at time of kill;
a record of the details of the catching vessel (e.g. flag, owner, operator, call sign);
time and location of catch; and
in the case of farm harvest, details of the farm, such as owner and operator.
182
115
Members and Cooperating Non-Members should require the master or operator of
each of its vessels, and the owner or operator of its farms, who are issued tags to
record the SBT tag numbers attached to southern bluefin tuna in logbooks or other
reporting format for that purpose, together with the length and weight of each fish
tagged. Members and Cooperating Non-Members should require that this information
be provided to the Member or Cooperating Non-Member within 28 days of tagging,
or as soon thereafter as is practicable.
183
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
Southern bluefin tuna tagging
Executive summary
New Zealand is a Member of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna
(CCSBT). CCSBT is developing a catch documentation scheme so that individual fish can
be tracked from point of capture to market, to deter illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing. Valuable science information would also be collected.
It is proposed to establish regulations for requiring individual southern bluefin tuna to be
tagged, weighed and measured. Putting the requirement in place in advance of a formal
international agreement would allow for fine-tuning of the system, as well as collection of
more complete data for stock assessment. It would also signal New Zealand’s commitment
to developing a full catch documentation scheme, and enable rapid implementation of any
CCSBT decision (or unilateral implementation in the absence of an agreed CCSBT-wide
scheme). Other Members have already implemented or are trialling tagging.
Options for a tagging system include requiring commercial fishers to weigh and measure fish
at sea, or allowing for this to occur at Licensed Fish Receivers. MFish considers the latter
option is more practical. Under either option, provision needs to be made for vessels that
catch southern bluefin tuna as an occasional bycatch. In such instances, tagging may need to
occur upon landing, rather than at sea.
Adequacy statement
This Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by the Ministry of Fisheries’ (MFish)
Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Committee and is considered adequate according to the
criteria agreed by Cabinet.
This Regulatory Impact Statement has addressed all relevant aspects of the RIS requirements
contained in Cabinet Office Circular CO (07) 3.
Status quo and problem
Under the status quo, domestic catch information is collected through catch and effort returns
and landings returns. Fish that are exported must be accompanied by a by a completed
CCSBT Statistical Document. There is no requirement for fishers to tag individual fish, or
collect length and weight information on them.
Change is required in order to signal New Zealand’s commitment to the initiatives of
CCSBT. Putting in place a tagging requirement before a formal resolution from CCSBT also
allows for New Zealand to provide feedback to ensure the scheme developed is suitable for
New Zealand fishers.
Objectives
The National Fisheries Outcome supported by this proposal is “credible fisheries
management”.
Credible fisheries management outcomes are enhanced by implementing policies and
184
practices compatible with international obligations.
Alternative options
A catch documentation scheme as being discussed at CCSBT requires that individual fish are
tagged, weighed, and measured as soon as possible after they are killed. One option is to
require fishers who catch southern bluefin tuna to perform the measurements at sea. This
option would allow for minimal time between catching and measuring fish. However, it is
likely to be impractical for fishers on smaller vessels, which constitute the majority of the
fleet that targets southern bluefin tuna.
Preferred option
The preferred approach is to require fishers to tag and record some information about
southern bluefin tuna they catch and kill immediately, but to allow for measurement to occur
at Licensed Fish Receivers in some circumstances. In limited circumstances, weighing and
measurement would still need to occur on board vessels (for example, for larger freezer
vessels that land frozen product directly to market).
This option provides an appropriate balance between obtaining the desired information and
ensuring a system that is workable for fishers (particularly those on small vessels, or who
catch southern bluefin tuna as an occasional bycatch).
Compliance with the measure could be checked as part of routine compliance inspections.
MFish does not propose additional compliance effort at this stage. Once a full scheme is in
place, there are strong financial incentives for compliance (because of market controls that
will be established in importing countries).
Under either option, provision would be made for fishers who may catch southern bluefin
tuna as an occasional bycatch. Such fishers could not be expected to have the tags onboard
their vessel (and issuing all vessels with tags would create potential tag auditing and
management problems). Therefore, some provision would be made for tagging to occur after
landing. This process would need to be carefully managed to ensure there was no slippage,
and that all fish caught as bycatch entered into the tagging system.
Risks include putting in place a system that is unwieldy, leading to fishers failing to comply
with the requirements. This will be mitigated through close communication with fishers
during roll-out of the tagging scheme.
This option would be in addition to existing catch and landing reporting requirements. In
time, a full catch documentation system could replace the existing Statistical Document
scheme. At this stage, no rules would be made redundant as a result of the proposed changes.
Implementation and review
Regulations allowing for commercial fishers to tag southern bluefin tuna would be put in
place for 1 October 2008. MFish proposes that the regulations include a general requirement
for fishers to tag, accompanied by more detailed instructions to be issued by the Chief
Executive by gazette notice from time to time as required. Such instructions could be issued
if CCSBT makes a resolution on a catch documentation scheme, or if New Zealand decides to
implement such a scheme unilaterally (or in agreement with other Members of the
Commission).
185
Some discussion has already occurred with commercial fishers likely to be affected. Further
discussion will occur in relation to effective methods for tagging (e.g. materials, location of
tag). All fishers would be contacted in writing to inform them of any new requirements
(including both target fishers and those who may catch southern bluefin as a bycatch).
Discussions would also occur with Licensed Fish Receivers that generally land southern
bluefin tuna. Further, written notice would be sent to all other Licensed Fish Receivers, so
that they are familiar with the requirements if a fisher lands a southern bluefin tuna to them.
In this situation, the Licensed Fish Receiver would need to know whom to contact in order to
obtain a tag.
At the fourteenth meeting of CCSBT in October 2007, Members agreed to endeavour to trial
tagging programmes, whether individually or in cooperation with one another. It was further
agreed that Members and Cooperating Non-Members should report back to the Compliance
Committee in 2008 on the experience of their trial tagging programmes, including by
providing information such as the numbers of tags used, their distribution, and how the tag
information contributed to the documentation of the catch and trade of southern bluefin tuna.
Although regulations would not be in place until October 2008, MFish would nonetheless
work with fishers to collect such information to be discussed at the Compliance Committee in
October 2008.
Further monitoring and review would occur in the following year, and would be reported to
meetings of the CCSBT. MFish will also work with counterparts in Australia to learn from
tagging trials currently being conducted there.
Consultation
As noted, some discussion has already occurred with commercial fishers likely to be affected.
Further discussion would occur during implementation. MFish will consult with those
considered likely to have an interest in tuna tagging.
186
INITIAL POSITION PAPER - REVIEW OF HIGH SEAS
FISHING PERMITS
Executive Summary
1
A High Seas Fishing Permits (HSFP) is a mechanism for managing New Zealand
vessels fishing and the effects of those vessels fishing on the aquatic environment of
the High Seas. A HSFP permits the taking and transporting of fish on the High Seas.
2
The chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) has the power to issue
HSFPs under section 113H of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act). Any fishing and
transporting of fish undertaken pursuant to a HSFP must comply with the conditions
of that fishing permit and with relevant regulations made under section 297 of the Act
(section 113J of the Act).
3
MFish considers the use of HSFP to be a flexible and effective means of
implementing sustainability and other management controls in relation to New
Zealand vessels fishing on the High Seas. However since the introduction of HSFPs
in 2001, the number of permit conditions in the body, and contained in appendices to
the fishing permit, has increased substantially and is becoming unwieldy. The HSFP
is becoming inefficient and cumbersome to administer, lacks clarity and therefore may
also lack certainty for fishers as to what the permit conditions are.
4
In addition to this, New Zealand is entering into an increasing number of Regional
Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) agreements, and international
conservation and management measures which have implications for New Zealand
vessels on the High Seas. As a result of this, there needs to be both a generic set of
HSFP conditions and appropriate conditions to implement relevant RFMO measures
in New Zealand.
5
Accordingly, MFish is currently reviewing HSFP permit conditions and is considering
means to clarify and simplify HSFPs to ensure greater clarity in permit conditions and
increased certainty that New Zealand is fulfilling its international obligations on the
High Seas. MFish is currently improving the content and structure of HSFP, and will
issue improved HSFPs on 1 April 2008.
6
MFish outlines two options in the IPP. Option One is to retain the current HSFP
conditions (the status quo). Option Two is to place those conditions that are generic
and unlikely to change in regulation by 1 October 2008 while retaining the Schedules
that pertain to each RFMO. Option Two is compatible with MFish’s current review
of HSFP, which will be enacted on 1 April 2008 29. MFish prefers adopting Option
Two in order to simplify the administration of High Seas fishing by New Zealand
nationals and provide greater certainty to permit holders of what general controls
apply to New Zealand vessels fishing on the high seas.
29
For further information on the current review of HSFP email [email protected]
187
7
No other management controls are proposed. These proposals are not intended to
change any management measure but simply to change the means of implementing
them.
8
Key issues include:
•
The requirement to meet New Zealand’s international obligations on the High
Seas;
•
The requirement to implement effective sustainability and other management
controls on New Zealand’s fishing vessels operating on the High Seas;
•
The need to improve certainty that permit holders understand and comply with
measures;
•
The need for greater clarity and simplicity of the means to implement
management measures on the High Seas;
•
The need for flexibility and ease of implementing appropriate measures;
•
The certainty and clarity of the legal framework used to implement measures on
the High Seas;
•
The utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
9
This IPP required a Regulatory Impact Statement which was reviewed internally by
MFish’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Steering Committee.
10
For more information on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements and the
meaning of the word ‘significant’ with reference to an IPP, please refer to the
Ministry of Economic Development website www.med.govt.nz.
The Issue
11
At present HSFP conditions implement sustainability and other management controls
on the High Seas and may be characterised into two categories.
•
Conditions that are general generic and administrative (the definitions and general
conditions of the current HSFP are listed in Appendix two);
•
Conditions tailored to implementing specific Regional Fisheries Management
Organisation (RFMO) 30 measures to which New Zealand is a party 31.
30
RFMOs have been established to (among other things) supervise and manage fishing for highly migratory and
straddling stocks sustainably on the high seas in a manner consistent with the goals of pertinent international
agreements.
31
New Zealand is a member of three RFMOs: the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources (CCAMLR); the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC); and the Commission
188
a)
b)
Generic conditions include:
i)
Requirements regarding the carriage on board of specified documents
including the HSFP;
ii)
Requirements regarding communication standards;
iii)
Requirement to notify details relating to particular voyages;
iv)
Requirement to notify entry/exit from New Zealand fisheries waters,
and fishing under foreign fishing jurisdiction or in any restricted area;
v)
Requirement to notify entry into port;
vi)
Requirements regarding the carriage of observers;
vii)
Requirements regarding inspections;
viii)
Requirements regarding vessel monitoring;
ix)
Requirement regarding the marking of vessels;
x)
Requirements regarding approval to land to ports outside New Zealand
fisheries waters;
xi)
Requirements regarding prior approval to make transhipments;
xii)
Requirements regarding reporting;
xiii)
Requirements regarding transit limitations;
xiv)
Requirements regarding gear restrictions;
xv)
Requirement to exclude from the HSFP anadromous fish and those fish
stocks covered by regional arrangements that New Zealand is not a
party.
Measures to give effect to international management measures as required
from time to time by the WCPFC, CCSBT, CCAMLR, SIOFA, and SPRFMO.
12
There has been a steady incremental increase in the number of generic and
administrative conditions used since 2001. The section of the permit containing the
generic conditions now numbers 16 pages. The permit is becoming difficult to
administer and enforce, there is repetition, formatting issues and a need to ensure
fishing permit conditions are clear and easy for fishers to understand. Accordingly the
HSFP is becoming inefficient to administer, may be confusing to permit holders and
may be lacking sufficient levels of certainty.
13
This IPP outlines a proposal to improve the clarity, certainty and potentially
transparency by moving some HSFP conditions into regulation.
14
The other types of condition are those implementing international conservation and
management measures including those relating to RFMO commitments to which New
Zealand is a party. International conservation and management measures are given
effect in New Zealand by regulation or through HSFP conditions. However, the
flexibility and comparative efficiency of implementation of high seas fishing permit
for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin tuna (CCCSBT). New Zealand is also a party to interim arrangements
in the formation of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) and for the
South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA).
189
conditions in comparison to regulations, means HSFP conditions are likely to remain
the preferred means of implementing any international conservation and management
measures subject to change in the short term, or requiring early implementation.
There is a much greater need for retaining flexibility for implementing international
conservation and management measures because many resolutions are provisional in
nature and in the form of capacity controls that are liable to change from time to time.
Summary of Options
Option One – Status Quo
15
The status quo option is to retain the current arrangement of administrating
sustainability and management controls on the High Seas by HSFP. Permit holders
would continue to be subject to and need to comply with all permit conditions during
the term of the HSFP.
16
The status quo would incorporate the improvements made through any outcomes of
the current MFish HSFP review.
17
The review of HSFPs includes but is not necessarily be limited to the formatting and
structural matters listed below. These measures are anticipated to come into effect
with HSFPs issued from 1 April 2008:
•
Revise the wording of HSFP conditions to simplify, clarify and provide greater
certainty to HSFP holders. (This would not have the effect of changing the
meaning of generic permit conditions);
•
Remove redundant conditions (e.g. conditions 37 and 38 as listed in Appendix
Two);
•
Define the relationship of the schedules to the main body of the fishing permit;
•
Clarify definitions and place them appropriately within the HSFP;
•
Standardise the formatting of the HSFP to make it more user friendly.
18
Those intending to fish the High Seas from 1 April 2008 will be required to apply, and
where appropriate, be issued with a new HSFP containing revised permit conditions.
Under the status quo, HSFPs would remain as the primary means of implementing
monitoring and reporting requirements and regulating fishing by vessels on the High
Seas fishing register.
19
Additional conditions are likely be added from time to time as required particularly
those concerning new or revised RFMO measures 32.
32
New conditions arising from recent RFMO resolutions are already being considered through a separate
process. For example to achieve interim arrangements for the South Pacific new HSFP conditions are currently
proposed that will limit the areas in which bottom trawling may occur, with the requirement to move on where
evidence of vulnerable marine ecosystems is encountered.
190
Option Two –Review permit conditions and place generic and
administrative measures in regulation-MFish Preferred Option
20
Option Two proposes to continue from the current review of HSFP conditions
described above but also further evaluate those HSFP conditions suited for
implementing by regulation. Suitability for inclusion in regulations will relate
primarily to those conditions that are purely administrative and/or generic in nature
and unlikely to change each fishing year. Those HSFP conditions assessed suitable
would be implemented by regulation on 1 October 2008 and subsequently removed
from the HSFP. Accordingly, option two will require amendments to the commercial
fishing and the reporting regulations or the inclusion of a new set of High Seas fishing
regulations.
21
Accordingly, Option Two proposes to identify conditions that are:
22
a)
Generic, and unlikely to change in the medium term from fishing year to
fishing year and place these in regulations by 1 October 2008 (e.g. conditions
2-36 and 39-48 as listed in Appendix Two).
b)
Identify those conditions that may be subject to change or require early
implementation to remain as HSFP conditions (e.g. many of the current
schedules such as those implementing international conservation and
management measures, including those relating to the WCPFC, CCAMLR
and SPRFMO negotiations.
As for Option One the current demarcation of HSFP conditions into those that are
primarily generic and administrative contained in the body of the permit and those
that implement specific RFMO measures to which New Zealand is a party contained
in appendices would remain. However by adopting Option Two, the number of
conditions retained in the body of the HSFP would be greatly reduced. Additional
conditions are likely to be added to the HSFP from time to time as required.
However, these will primarily concern new or revised international conservation and
management measures to be implemented by conditions in appendices of the HSFP as
appropriate.
Rationale for Management Options
23
The option to place conditions in regulation is proposed under section 297 of the Act.
24
Key factors when considering relevant management options are:
•
The need to improve certainty to ensure that permit holders understand and
comply with measures pertaining to the High Seas;
•
The need for greater clarity and simplicity of the means to implement management
measures;
•
The need for flexibility and ease of implementing measures;
•
The certainty of the legal framework used to implement measures;
191
•
25
The utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability.
The rationale for Option Two is that it is likely to be compatible with any outcome of
the current (1 April 2008) MFish review of HSFP conditions and can be implemented
in a logical sequence of time. The current review will improve the clarity of HSFPs,
but may not reduce the size of the HSFP significantly. Accordingly, MFish prefers
adopting Option Two in order to further simplify the administration of High Seas
fishing by New Zealand vessels and provide greater certainty to permit holders by
removing redundant conditions. Option Two would significantly reduce the size and
complexity of the current HSFP, and would be more user friendly. The regulations
proposed under Option Two would also provide greater availability and transparency
of information that comes from having the requirements generally available to the
public. In addition to this, regulations will likely provide increased certainty to fishers
as to what general conditions are going to be for each fishing year.
Assessment of Management Options
26
MFish considers that the proposals are unlikely to have significant impacts on HSFP
holders because no changes to management measures are proposed, changes are
related to the mechanism of implementation.
27
MFish is interested in the views of stakeholders on the proposed options. In particular
MFish is interested in hearing from HSFP holders as to any difficulties they might
have interpreting and/or complying with current HSFP conditions and their
assessment of the relative merits of the options. In the event permit holders favour
option two they may wish to indicate a preference for amendments to the existing
commercial fishing and reporting regulations or a new set of High Seas fishing
regulations.
Option One – Status Quo
Impact
28
The current generic HSFP have been in use consistently since 2001. There have been
few major changes to the wording of individual HSFP conditions. However, there has
been a substantial increase in the number of new permit conditions over time.
Separate consultation occurs as and when new HSFP conditions are imposed. MFish
considers HSFP holders are generally familiar with the operation of the regime,
although the current permit may be cumbersome to use.
Costs
29
The current HSFP has an unwieldy number of administrative and or generic
conditions. The major disadvantage of retaining the status quo is the uncertainty
around permit holders to interpret and understand what is required to comply with all
HSFP conditions because of its cumbersome nature. MFish hopes to reduce this
problem through its current review of HSFP conditions, and improvements to the
formatting and clarity of wording of the HSFP.
192
Benefits
30
An advantage of the status quo is the ease and flexibility of implementing measures.
In addition, HSFP holders are generally familiar with what is required, although not
necessarily clear. Therefore, this benefit is offset against the lengthy cumbersome and
potentially confusing nature of the permit. Fishers can refer to a single, albeit
increasingly large and complex, document in order to comply with the current HSFP
conditions. However, it is uncertain how well fishers actually understand what is
written in the permit. HSFP holders are likely to find interpretation of the HSFP is
improved following amended HSFP being issued on 1 April 2008.
Option Two – Review permit conditions and place those that are generic
in Regulation – MFish preferred option
Impact
31
Option Two proposes to identify conditions that are generic, and unlikely to change in
the medium term and place these in regulation by 1 October 2008. Accordingly
option two will require amendments to the commercial fishing and the reporting
regulations or a new set of High Seas fishing regulations.
32
As with the other option, adopting Option Two would not impact on any management
measures. However, there will be a loss of flexibility in the ability to quickly change
any measures implemented by regulations. Offsetting this is the increased certainty of
what general permit conditions are going to be each fishing year, that is provided by
regulations
Costs
33
There might be inconvenience cost associated with the requirement for HSFP holders
to comply with two sets of non-overlapping rules. If Option Two was adopted there
would be a set of regulations (although in general these would pertain to the more
generic measures for the High Seas) and a set of HSFP conditions (although in general
these would pertain towards implementing specific RFMO measures).
34
Compliance with the measure could be checked as part of routine compliance
inspections. MFish does not propose additional compliance effort is necessary as
proposals are not intended to change or add any management measure but simply to
change the means of implementing them.
Benefits
35
MFish prefers this option because it best meets the requirement to implement effective
sustainability and other management controls on New Zealand’s fishing vessels
operating on the High Seas. This option addresses the need to improve certainty that
permit holders understand and comply with measures, the need for greater clarity and
simplicity of the means to implement management measures on the High Seas and the
need for greater efficiency in the HSFP application/issuing process.
36
There is also value in placing generic conditions in regulation because of the
increased availability and transparency that comes from having the requirements
193
generally available to the public. Those HSFP conditions retained will become more
tailored to implementing international conservation and management measures and it
is likely to be easier for permit holders to understand and adhere to these more
specific conditions.
Other Management Controls
37
No other management controls are proposed. These proposals are not intended to
change any management measure but simply to change the means of implementing
them.
Statutory Considerations
38
In reviewing the appropriateness of the proposals outlined in this IPP the relevant
statutory criteria is outlined in Appendix One.
194
Appendix One
Statutory Considerations
39
In reviewing the appropriateness of proposals outlined in this IPP, the following
statutory criteria apply. Under the Fisheries Act 1996 (FA96):
40
Section 5(a) requires all persons exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers
conferred or imposed by or under the FA96 to act in a manner consistent with New
Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing.
41
New Zealand is a party to certain international conservation and management
measures which have relevance for high seas fishing. These include but are not
limited to measures adopted by the WCPFC, CCSBT, CCAMLR, SIOFA, and
SPRFMO negotiating parties.
42
Section 5(b) requires all persons exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers
conferred or imposed by or under the FA96 to act in a manner consistent with the
Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
43
MFish considers that the proposals are consistent with the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
44
Section 8. The purpose of the FA96 is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability. Ensuring sustainability means maintaining
the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future
generations and avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on
the aquatic environment. ‘Utilisation’ means conserving, using, enhancing, and
developing fisheries resources to enable people to provide for their social, economic
and cultural wellbeing
45
The proposed options outlined in this IPP include option 2 which is intended to
improve the administration and compliance with sustainability measures and other
management measures pertaining to the High Seas. Proposals should contribute to
ensuring that the fishery is sustainable.
46
Improved administration, certainty and compliance with High Seas measures is likely
to better enable people to provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing.
Particularly of relevance is the economic wellbeing of fishers since the species fished
for by New Zealand vessels on the high seas can achieve high export prices.
47
Section 9 requires all persons exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers
conferred or imposed by or under the FA96, in relation to the utilisation of fisheries
resources or ensuring sustainability, to take into account the following environmental
principles: (a) Associated or dependent species should be maintained above a level
that ensures their long-term viability: (b) Biological diversity of the aquatic
environment should be maintained: (c) Habitat of particular significance for fisheries
management should be protected.
195
48
Fisheries on the High Seas occasionally catch sea birds turtles and other nonharvested marine life. There are also known detrimental impacts on the benthos from
trawling. There are therefore potential impacts on associated and dependent species,
biodiversity and protected species that require monitoring and possibly future
management action. There are no known habitats of particular significance that will
be affected by the proposals. MFish considers that the environmental principles set
out in section 9 of the Act will be better met by option 2 with the likelihood of
improved certainty that permit holders understand and comply with relevant
management measures.
49
Section 10 requires all persons exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers
conferred or imposed by or under the FA96, in relation to the utilisation of fisheries
resources or ensuring sustainability, to take into account the following information
principles:
a)
Decisions should be based on the best available information:
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:
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
that Act.
50
There is uncertainty about the effectiveness and compliance of current HSFP
conditions by permit holders. MFish considers that adopting measures as proposed in
option 2, due to improved clarity and understanding of permit conditions would
provide greater certainty in this regard than continuing with the status quo.
51
Section 189 requires certain persons to keep accounts, records and provide to the CE
such returns as may be required by or under regulations made under the FA96.
Section 189(a) includes holders of fishing permits, special permits, licences or other
authorities or approvals issued or granted under the FA96 entitling the holder to take
fish, aquatic life, or seaweed by any method for any purpose. This includes
commercial fishers fishing on the high seas.
52
Section 297 empowers the Governor General to make regulations for certain purposes.
This includes under s297(1)(a) to (xiii) which relate to regulating and controlling the
taking , possession and processing of fish aquatic life or seaweed, including controls
on methods, equipment and devices, identification, storage and record keeping. (For
more details see s297(1)(a) to (xiii) FA96).
53
Other section 297(1) criteria relevant to the proposals outlined in this IPP includes
s297(1)(e) defining the vessels or classes or types of vessels to which any regulations
are to apply; s297(1)(h) prescribing the accounts, records, returns, and information
persons may be required to provide under the FA96; s297(1)(l) prescribing forms an
other documents required for the purpose of the FA96; s297(1)(n) creating relevant
offence provisions; s297(1)(y) providing for such other matters as are contemplated
by or necessary for giving full effect to the provisions of the FA96 and for its due
administration
196
54
Section 297(1)(o) enables the Governor General to make regulations implementing
any provisions of, or giving effect to, New Zealand’s relevant international
obligations.
55
MFish considers that the proposals contained in the IPP have relevance to New
Zealand implementing relevant international obligations pertaining to the High Seas.
56
Section 297(2) clarifies that regulations made under section 297 may apply in respect
of New Zealand nationals and New Zealand ships when they are outside New Zealand
fisheries waters.
57
Section 113K(1) empowers the chief executive to place conditions on high seas permit
that he considers appropriate. The proposals outlined in this IPP include reference to
current high seas permit conditions. It also has potential implications for future high
seas fishing permits.
197
Appendix Two
Existing high seas fishing permit definitions and general
conditions.
NEW ZEALAND
HIGH SEAS FISHING PERMIT
HSP1234567
Pursuant to section 113H of the Fisheries Act 1996:
Generic Fishing Company Limited
Client number XXXXXXX
is hereby authorised to use the following vessel to take and transport fish, aquatic life and
seaweed on the high seas, subject to the conditions of this permit, the Fisheries Act 1996,
any relevant regulations made under that Act, and all other relevant legislation:
Vessel Name
(insert name here)
International Radio Call Sign
ZMXX
Period for which Fishing is authorised
This permit is valid from 12 December 2007 until 30th April 2008 (inclusive).
Amendment and Revocation of Conditions
The Chief Executive may from time to time, by written notice to the permit holder, amend,
add to, or revoke any of the conditions in this permit with effect from the date specified in
the notice.
Chief Executive approvals and exemptions
Where any event or thing requires the approval or exemption of the Chief Executive, that
approval or exemption may be given subject to conditions, which must be complied with as
though they were conditions of this permit.
If required to obtain an approval or exemption from the Chief Executive under this permit,
the permit holder must apply, in writing, to FishServe, PO Box 297, Wellington.
198
Definitions
Terms used in this permit have the meanings set out in section 2(1) the Fisheries Act 1996
or as set out below:
“FCC” means the Fisheries Communication Centre of the Ministry of Fisheries.
“High seas returns” means high seas trawl catch effort returns, high seas squid jigging
catch effort returns, high seas tuna longlining catch effort returns, high seas lining catch
effort returns and high seas catch effort landing returns.
“High seas trawl catch effort returns”, “High seas squid jigging catch effort
returns”, “High seas tuna longlining catch effort returns”, “High seas lining
catch effort returns”, “High seas catch effort landing returns” mean the forms
that have been approved by the Chief Executive for that purpose.
“Landing” means the removal or discharge of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed from the vessel
in respect of which this permit has been issued. A landing is also deemed to occur from
the vessel when the vessel ceases to be registered or is re-registered under the
Fisheries Act, for whatever reason and by whatever mechanism.
“Permit holder” means the holder of this high seas fishing permit issued under section
113H of the Fisheries Act 1996.
“Restricted areas” means areas defined in conditions 47 and 48.
“Trip” means the movement of the vessel from a port and its return to that port or arrival at
another port, whether the port is in New Zealand or elsewhere, for the purpose of
taking or transporting fish, aquatic life, or seaweed pursuant to this high seas fishing
permit.
“Written notice to FCC” means the transmission of the required information by means of
either electronic mail (E-mail), or facsimile to FCC at the following address/number:
E-mail
[email protected]
Facsimile
+64 4 801 5381
“FFA licensing country” means the member country of the South Pacific Forum
Fisheries Agency that has provided licensed access to highly migratory fish stocks in
its exclusive economic zone.
“FFA country licence” means the licence issued by the FFA licensing country to
fish for high migratory stocks in its exclusive economic zone.
199
“South Pacific Regional Longline Logsheet” means catch logs that must be
completed by vessels using the longline method, whether on the high seas or in the
exclusive economic zone of the licensing country, on a trip pursuant to a FFA country
licence.
“South Pacific Regional Pole-and-Line Logsheet” means catch logs that must
be completed by vessels using the pole and line method, whether on the high seas
or in the exclusive economic zone of the licensing country, on a trip pursuant to a
FFA country licence.
“South Pacific Regional Purse-Seine Logsheet” means catch logs that must be
completed by vessels using the purse-seine method, whether on the high seas or in
the exclusive economic zone of the licensing country, on a trip pursuant to a FFA
country licence.
“MFish International Policy” means International and Biosecurity, Ministry of
Fisheries, PO Box 1020, Wellington, New Zealand.
“Notification of entry to or exit from the FFA licensing country exclusive
economic zone” means the notification of entry to or exit from the exclusive
economic zone of the FFA licensing country, as specified in the FFA country licence.
“Notification of entry into port” means the notification of entry into the port of a
FFA licensing country, as specified in the FFA country licence.
“Highly migratory fish stocks” are stocks of the fish species listed in Annex 1 of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982
200
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1
This permit or a copy of it must be carried on board the vessel when on a trip.
COMMUNICATIONS
2
The permit holder must ensure that a copy of all communications made to and
received from FCC or any other New Zealand Government agency in relation to a trip,
is kept on board the vessel during that trip.
3
The permit holder must ensure that the master of the vessel has a sound command of
the English language.
Intention to leave port
4
When leaving on a trip, the permit holder must ensure that written notice to FCC of
the following matters is provided at least 6 working days prior to the departure of the
vessel from a port:
4.1
name of high seas permit holder,
4.2
vessel name,
4.3
international radio call sign,
4.4
name of vessel master,
4.5
intended date and time of departure from port (specify whether using UTC or
NZST),
4.6
port of departure (including state and country, if outside NZ),
4.7
species, weight and state of bait (if any) on board vessel at time of departure
from port,
5
4.8
area and species intended to be fished on trip,
4.9
intended method of fishing on trip,
4.10
proposed date of arrival at any port, and
4.11
name of port of arrival.
The permit holder must ensure that written notice to FCC is provided immediately if
any details in condition 4 change at any time prior to or during a trip.
201
Notification of entry to/exit from New Zealand fisheries waters, any foreign fishing
jurisdiction, or any restricted area
6
When on a trip, the permit holder must ensure that written notice to FCC of the
following matters is provided immediately on the vessel’s entry to or exit from New
Zealand fisheries waters, any foreign fishing jurisdiction, or any restricted area,
including when transiting:
6.1
name of permit holder,
6.2
vessel name,
6.3
international radio call sign,
6.4
date, time and position of crossing of boundary (specify whether using UTC or
NZST), and
6.5
estimated time, date and position of exit from New Zealand fisheries waters,
if entering New Zealand fisheries waters to transit.
When on a trip where the fishing is occurring pursuant to a FFA country licence, whether on
the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone of the FFA licensing country, the
following amendments apply.
Condition 6 of the New Zealand high seas fishing permit does not apply when entering or
exiting the exclusive economic zone of the FFA licensing country.
Notification of entry and exit from the exclusive economic zone of the FFA licensing country,
as specified in the FFA country licence, shall also be sent to FCC.
The notification shall be sent to FCC immediately on the vessel’s entry to or exit from the
FFA licensing country’s exclusive economic zone.
The notification is required only when the vessel first enters the FFA licensing country’s
exclusive economic and again when the vessel exits the FFA licensing country’s exclusive
economic zone for the final time on that trip.
Notification of intention of entry to port
7
When on a trip, the permit holder must ensure that written notice to FCC of the
following matters is provided no later than 48 hours prior to the arrival of a vessel in
any port (New Zealand or elsewhere):
7.1
name of permit holder,
7.2
vessel name,
7.3
international radio call sign,
7.4
estimated date and time of arrival in port (specify whether using UTC or
NZST),
202
7.5
intended port of call,
7.6
an estimate of the species, weight and state of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed
on board the vessel,
7.7
estimated date and time of commencement of unloading (if any),
7.8
species, weight and state of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed to be landed (if
any), and
7.9
if landing to a port outside New Zealand fisheries waters, date of issue of
approval granted under condition 20 of this permit, or a request to obtain
approval.
When on a trip where the fishing is occurring pursuant to a FFA country licence, whether on
the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone of the FFA licensing country, the
following amendments apply.
Condition 7 of the New Zealand high seas fishing permit does not apply when entering a
port of the FFA licensing country.
Notification of entry into port of the FFA licensing country, as specified in the FFA country
licence, shall also be sent to FFC.
The notification shall be sent to FCC immediately on the vessel’s entry into the FFA licensing
country’s port.
OBSERVERS
8
The permit holder is required to carry an observer on a trip if requested to do so by
the Chief Executive.
9
The permit holder must meet all costs arising from carriage of an observer if
requested to do so by the Chief Executive.
10
The provisions relating to the placement of observers are contained in Part XII of the
Fisheries Act 1996.
INSPECTION
11
The permit holder must ensure that a fishery officer or observer inspects the vessel
and certifies that the vessel is empty of fish, aquatic life and seaweed prior to the
vessel departing from a New Zealand port on a trip, unless prior written exemption has
been obtained from the Chief Executive.
203
12
Condition 11 does not prevent the carriage of bait to be used for high seas fishing,
provided the species, weight and state of the bait is recorded and notified in
accordance with condition 4 prior to port departure.
VESSEL MONITORING
13
The permit holder must ensure that the vessel carries and operates an automatic
location communicator currently registered with the Ministry of Fisheries at all times
during the term of this permit.
14
The permit holder must comply with the requirements of the Fisheries (Satellite Vessel
Monitoring ) Regulations 1993 and any circulars issued thereunder as if they were
conditions of this permit. References in those regulations to “the operator and master
of any vessel required by these regulations to carry and operate an ALC” must be read
as references to “high seas fishing permit issued under section 113H of the Fisheries
Act 1996”.
15
The permit holder must meet all costs arising from ensuring compliance with the
requirements of the Fisheries (Satellite Vessel Monitoring ) Regulations 1993.
VESSEL MARKINGS
16
The permit holder must ensure that the vessel is marked in accordance with
Regulations 9, 10, 11(2), 11(3), 12 and 13 the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing)
Regulations 2001.
17
The permit holder must ensure that the vessel is clearly and legibly marked with the
vessel's international radio call sign.
18
The permit holder must ensure that all tenders are clearly and legibly marked on at
least one side of the hull with the international radio call sign of the vessel to which it
is a tender.
204
LANDING AND OTHER DISPOSAL OF FISH
19
Each landing to a Licensed Fish Receiver and each transhipment within New Zealand
fisheries waters must be supervised by a fishery officer or observer, unless otherwise
advised by FCC. All associated costs of the supervision are to be met by the permit
holder.
20
No fish, aquatic life, or seaweed may be landed to a port outside New Zealand
fisheries waters without the prior written approval of the Chief Executive. See
Schedule 1 for further information.
21
No fish, aquatic life, or seaweed may be transhipped while in a port or on a trip, either
to, or from the vessel, whether on the high seas or otherwise, without the prior
written approval of the Chief Executive. See Schedule 1 for further information.
REPORTING
22
For the purposes of the reporting conditions in this permit, the term “trip” does not
include a trip that is solely for the purposes of transporting fish, aquatic life or
seaweed pursuant to this permit.
23
Every permit holder who is required to complete high seas returns and catch landing
returns must complete such returns in accordance with the explanatory notes attached
to the returns and the requirements of the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 as if
they were conditions of this permit.
High seas returns
24
Every permit holder who takes fish, aquatic life, or seaweed by the method of trawling
must complete high seas trawl catch effort returns.
25
Every permit holder who takes squid by way of jigging must complete high seas squid
jigging catch effort returns.
205
26
Every permit holder who targets tuna by the method of longlining must complete high
seas tuna longlining catch effort returns.
27
Every permit holder who takes fish by the methods of bottom longlining, surface
longlining (targeting species other than tuna), or trot lining must complete a high seas
lining catch effort return.
28
Every permit holder who is required to complete high seas trawl catch effort returns,
high seas squid jigging catch effort returns, high seas tuna longlining catch effort
returns, or high seas lining catch effort returns must28.1
complete such returns for each day or part day that the vessel is on a trip
(including days where no fish, aquatic life, or seaweed is taken); and
28.2
furnish such returns to FishServe no later than 7 days after the last day of the
trip.
16. Where the completion of a trip is at the port of a foreign country, condition
28.2 of the New Zealand high seas permit is changed to read: “furnish such
returns to FishServe no later than 20 days after the last day of the trip”.
Catch landing returns
29
Every permit holder –
29.1
who is required to complete high seas trawl catch effort returns, high seas
squid jigging catch effort returns, high seas tuna longlining catch effort
returns, or high seas lining catch effort returns; and
29.2
who lands any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed to a licensed fish receiver in New
Zealand-
must complete catch landing returns in respect of all landings for that trip (whether
such landings occurred within New Zealand fisheries waters or elsewhere).
30
Every permit holder required to complete catch landing returns must do so in the
following manner:
30.1
In respect of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed landed to a licensed fish receiver,
206
the permit holder must complete catch landing returns immediately on
landing, with the exception of the last 2 columns of the section of the return
headed “Catch Landing Data” which must be completed immediately upon
receipt of the necessary information required from a licensed fish receiver;
and
30.2
In respect of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed landed other than to a licensed fish
receiver, the permit holder must complete catch landing returns immediately
on landing.
31
Every permit holder required to complete catch landing returns must furnish such
returns to FishServe no later than 7 days after the last day of the trip.
High seas catch effort landing returns
32
Every permit holder who takes fish, aquatic life, or seaweed pursuant to this permit
but who is not required to complete high seas trawl catch effort returns, high seas
squid jigging catch effort returns, high seas tuna longlining catch effort returns, or
high seas lining catch effort returns must complete high seas catch effort landing
returns.
33
Every permit holder who is required to complete high seas catch effort landing returns
must complete the section of the return headed “Catch/Effort Data” for each day or
part day that the vessel is on a trip (including days where no fish, aquatic life or
seaweed is taken.
34
Every permit holder –
34.1
who is required to complete high seas catch effort landing returns; and
34.2
who lands any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed to a licensed fish receiver in New
Zealand-
must complete the section of the return headed “Catch Landing Data” in respect of all
landings for that trip (whether such landings occurred within New Zealand fisheries
207
waters or elsewhere).
35
33
Every permit holder who is required to complete the section headed “Catch Landing
Data” of the high seas catch effort landing return must do so in the following manner:
35.1
In respect of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed landed to a licensed fish receiver,
the permit holder must complete the section of the return headed “Catch
Landing Data” immediately on landing, with the exception of the last 2
columns which must be completed immediately upon receipt of the necessary
information required from a licensed fish receiver; and
35.2
In respect of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed landed other than to a licensed fish
receiver, the permit holder must complete the section of the return headed
“Catch Landing Data” immediately on landing.
36
Every permit holder required to complete high seas catch effort landing returns must
furnish such returns to FishServe no later than 7 days after the last day of the trip
Where the completion of a trip is at the port of a foreign country, condition 36 of the
New Zealand high seas permit is changed to read: “Every permit holder must furnish
catch and effort landing returns to FishServe no later than 20 days after the last day
of the trip”.
Other requirements
37
High seas return books can be obtained from FishServe.
38
An image of each type of high seas return is attached to this permit.
39
In addition, when taking fish, aquatic life, or seaweed pursuant to this permit, all the
requirements of the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 apply as if they were
conditions of this permit, except:
33
Note: Permit holders required to complete high seas catch effort landing returns but who do not land any fish, aquatic life,
or seaweed to a licensed fish receiver in New Zealand are not required to complete the section of the return headed “Catch
Landing Data”.
208
39.1
39.2
High seas returns must be completed and furnished instead of:
39.1.1
catch, effort and landing returns;
39.1.2
trawl catch, effort and processing returns;
39.1.3
squid jigging catch, effort returns;
39.1.4
tuna longlining catch, effort returns; or
39.1.5
lining catch effort returns.
All times must be recorded in hours and minutes according to a 24-hour clock
in UTC (Co-ordinated Universal Time) rather than New Zealand standard time
or New Zealand daylight time.
39.3
The appropriate species code to be entered on a high seas return in respect
of the particular species taken is specified on the Ministry of Fisheries
website: www.fish.govt.nz
39.4
All fishstock codes must be reported as the appropriate species code followed
by the area code “ET” (e.g. for orange roughy enter “ORHET”) unless a
different area code is specified. An area-specific or species-specific
authorisation or approval may require you to use a different area code when
taking fish, aquatic life, or seaweed pursuant to that authorisation or
approval. For example authorisations under the Fisheries (South Tasman Rise
Orange Roughy Fishery) Regulations 2000 require holders to use the area
code "STR" after the species code.
39.5
Where a species of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed is taken for which there is no
corresponding species code, the species code for an unidentified species must
be used (“UNX”). The permit holder must then obtain the correct scientific
name for that species and report that scientific name , along with other
relevant details to FishServe (PO Box297, Wellington).
39.6
The latitude and longitude of each place where the species of fish, aquatic
life, or seaweed were taken or where fishing commenced must be entered on
the appropriate high seas return.
When on a trip:
•
•
•
While highly migratory fish stocks are being targeted and no other species are being
targeted; and
While the method of fishing is one or more of the pole-and-line, purse-seine and/or
longline methods and no other methods are being used; and
While the fishing is occurring pursuant to a FFA country licence, whether on the high
seas or in the exclusive economic zone of the FFA licensing country;
209
the following amendments apply.
Conditions 22 to 39 of the New Zealand high seas fishing permit do not apply.
The holder of the New Zealand high seas fishing permit shall complete:
• A South Pacific Regional Longline Logsheet when fishing using the longline method;
or
• A South Pacific Regional Pole-and-Line Logsheet when fishing using the pole-and-line
method; or
• A South Pacific Regional Purse-Seine Logsheet when fishing using the purse-seine
method.
Copies of the completed logsheets shall be furnished to MFish International Policy within 20
days of completion of the trip.
When landing into a New Zealand port, conditions 29 and 30 of the New Zealand high seas
fishing permit apply (i.e., the permit holder is required to complete and furnish catch
landing returns).
15. For any fishing activity during a trip that does not qualify under the criteria specified in
paragraph 10 of this schedule, conditions 22 to 39 of the New Zealand high seas fishing
permit apply.
TRANSIT LIMITATIONS
Limitations within New Zealand fisheries waters
40
The permit holder must not take any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed within New Zealand
fisheries waters during a trip unless written approval has been obtained from the Chief
Executive prior to departing on that trip.
41
Where the vessel has departed from a New Zealand port on a trip, the vessel must
proceed directly to the high seas unless an approval as specified in condition 40 has
been obtained from the Chief Executive.
42
Where the vessel has entered New Zealand fisheries waters from the high seas, the
vessel must proceed directly to port unless:
42.1
an approval as specified in condition 40 has been obtained from the Chief
Executive; or
42.2
the vessel is transiting New Zealand fisheries waters.
210
Limitations within foreign fishing jurisdictions
43
The permit holder must not take any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed within any foreign
fishing jurisdiction during a trip unless:
43.1
an approval to take fish, aquatic life, or seaweed within that foreign fishing
jurisdiction has been obtained in respect of the vessel; and
43.2
prior to the trip, the permit holder has supplied a copy of that approval to the
Manager, International and Biosecurity, Ministry of Fisheries, PO Box 1020,
Wellington.
44
Where the vessel has departed from a port of any country other than New Zealand on
a trip, the vessel must proceed directly to the high seas unless an approval as
specified in condition 43 has been obtained and a copy of that approval has been
supplied to the Ministry of Fisheries.
45
Where the vessel has entered any foreign fishing jurisdiction from the high seas or
from another foreign fishing jurisdiction while on a trip, the vessel must proceed
directly to port unless:
45.1
an approval as specified in condition 43 has been obtained and a copy of that
approval has been supplied to the Manager, International and Biosecurity,
Ministry of Fisheries, PO Box 1020, Wellington.; or
45.2
the vessel is transiting the foreign fishing jurisdiction.
GEAR RESTRICTIONS
Stowage of gear
46
Whenever the vessel is in an area where fishing, or certain types of fishing, are not
permitted, the permit holder must stow the relevant fishing equipment in such a
manner that it is not readily available for use for fishing.
AREA/SPECIES RESTRICTIONS
WestPac Bank
211
47
The vessel must not be used to trawl in the area enclosed by a line commencing at a
point on the boundary of the New Zealand exclusive economic zone (EEZ) at 390 S and
1680 34’ E and proceeding due west to a point 390 S and 1660 30’E then proceeding
due south to a point 400 30’ S and 1660 30’ E then proceeding due east to a point 400
30’S and 1670 24’E and then proceeding in a north-easterly direction to the point of
commencement, unless the prior written approval of the Chief Executive has been
obtained.
Note: Permit holders are reminded that when fishing in areas/for stocks subject to
arrangements that New Zealand is a party to, the following legislation and regulations must
be complied with (including the need to obtain an additional authorisation if required):
•
Fisheries (Southern Bluefin Tuna Quota) Regulations 2000;
•
Fisheries (South Tasman Rise Orange Roughy Fishery) Regulations 2000;
•
Fisheries (Toothfish Catch Documentation Scheme) Regulations 2000; and
•
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Act 1981.
48
Unless the permit holder has the prior approval of the Chief Executive, the permit
holder is not authorised under this permit to engage in fishing operations for fish
stocks that are subject to measures established by the following organisations or
arrangements:
•
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)
•
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)
•
International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC)
•
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
•
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)
•
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC)
•
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO)
•
Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)
212
Important Note: New Zealand’s international obligations are such that this list or
arrangements and organisations will change over time. Such changes will be notified to you
as a change in your permit conditions. You are invited to contact the Ministry of Fisheries
(Manager, International and Biosecurity, Ministry of Fisheries, PO Box 1020, Wellington) to
discuss how your planned activities may relate to New Zealand’s international obligations.
Note: Information on these organisations and arrangements, in particular the areas and
stocks to which they relate, can be found in Schedule 2 and on the Ministry of Fisheries
website (http://www.fish.govt.nz/commercial/high-seas/index.html ).
49
The permit holder must not engage in fishing operations for anadromous fish stocks
on the high seas.
Date: 12 December 2007
Wayne Lowther
General Manager (Client Services
Acting under delegated authority of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries
Government of New Zealand
213
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
Review of High Seas Permits
Executive Summary
The issuing of High Seas Fishing Permits (HSFP) is the method by which the Government
monitors and manages fishing on the High Seas by vessels registered in New Zealand. A
HSFP permits the taking and transporting of fish on the high seas.
Any fishing and transporting of fish undertaken pursuant to a HSFP must comply with the
conditions of that fishing permit and with relevant regulations.
Some conditions are general in their application and as such are more appropriately placed in
regulations in the longer term, when they are established. Also, while the use of HSFP is a
flexible and effective means of implementing controls on the high seas, the number of permit
conditions has increased substantially and is becoming unwieldy. This is due to the
Government’s increasing responsibilities as a signatory to an a number of Regional Fishery
Management Organisation (RFMO) arrangements pertaining to high seas fisheries.
The HSFP is becoming inefficient to administer with the increasing number of conditions,
may be confusing to permit holders and does not provide the transparency or legal certainty
that is available through the use of regulations. The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) is currently
reviewing the existing HSFP conditions with the aim of improving the form and
administration of the HSFP. MFish will implement the improved permit conditions by
1 April 2008. Option Two proposes that in addition to this, those conditions that are generic
and unlikely to change would be placed in regulation by 1 October 2008. This would
simplify the administration of High Seas fishing by New Zealand nationals, provide greater
legal strength, greater transparency and more certainty to permit holders.
Adequacy statement
This Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by the Ministry of Fisheries’
Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Committee and is considered adequate according to the
criteria agreed by Cabinet.
Status quo and problem
At present HSFP conditions implement sustainability, management and supporting
compliance measures for New Zealand vessels operating in high seas fisheries and may be
characterised into two categories:
•
Conditions that are generic and administrative;
•
Conditions tailored to implementing specific conservation and management
measures for Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) 34, to which
New Zealand is a party 35.
34
RFMOs have been established to (among other things) supervise and manage fishing for highly migratory and
straddling stocks sustainably on the high seas in a manner consistent with the goals of pertinent international
agreements.
35
New Zealand is a member of four RFMOs. These are the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management
214
There has been a steady incremental increase in the number of generic and administrative
conditions contained in HSFP as RFMOs become increasingly organised. The HSFP is
becoming difficult to administer and enforce, and as well as being repetitive, there is a need
to ensure fishing permit conditions are transparent in regards to operational requirements and
are clear and easy for fishers to understand.
The proposal to move generic HSFP condition into regulation aims to clarify and simplify
HSFPs to ensure greater certainty, and transparency that New Zealand is fulfilling its
international obligations on the High Seas.
A review of HSFP conditions is to be undertaken to improve their definition and remove
redundant conditions but will not change necessary conservation and management measures.
This proposal is not concerned with this administrative review; rather it proposes a more
effective mechanism with which to implement New Zealand’s requirements governing high
seas fishing.
Objectives
The National Fisheries outcome supported by this proposal is “credible fisheries
management”.
The objective to meet this outcome is:
•
Credible fisheries management outcomes are enhanced by better processes and by
implementing policies and practices compatible with international obligations.
Alternative options
An option is to retain the all of the conditions in the HSFP. The status quo is not favoured
because this will also not improve the legal certainty and transparency that can be gained
through putting conditions in regulation.
Preferred option
MFish’s preferred option is to place into regulations those permit conditions that are
administrative and/or generic in nature and unlikely to change. This would simplify the
administration of high seas fishing by New Zealand nationals and provide greater certainty to
permit holders, and transparency to the public (New Zealand and international).
Placing generic conditions in regulation is favoured because it implements, more effectively,
conservation and management measures agreed by RFMOs on New Zealand’s fishing vessels
operating on the high seas. This proposal addresses the need to improve certainty that all
operators understand and comply with measures, the need for greater clarity and simplicity of
the means to implement management measures on the high seas and the need for greater
efficiency in the HSFP application/issuing process. Also, having the permit conditions in
regulations would allow greater consideration of appropriate offences and penalties than can
a breach of permit.
Organisation (SPRFMO), the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Living Antarctic Resources
(CCAMLAR), the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Commission for the
Conservation of Southern Bluefin tuna (CCCSBT).
215
Compliance with proposals could be checked as part of routine monitoring inspections.
MFish does not propose additional compliance effort is necessary as proposals are not
intended to change or add any conservation and management measures but simply to change
the means of implementing them.
Implementation and review
The earliest practical date place into Regulations those permit conditions that are
administrative and / or generic in nature and unlikely to change is 1 October 2008.
Consultation
MFish has carried out consultation with stakeholders earlier this year, as part of its 2008
sustainability round process. Stakeholders supported the need for the current review of HSFP
conditions that MFish is undertaking. Stakeholders will be aware of the conditions and this
proposed new mechanism for their implementation through their involvement in the review
process.
Feedback has been positive, with an overwhelming consensus for supporting proposals such
as MFish’s preferred option.
216