1. sports
2. fishing

Review of Regulatory Measures and Other Management
Controls for 1 October 2010
Volume 1: Final Advice Papers and Summary of
Recommendations
1 June 2010
1
2
Review of Regulatory Measures and Other
Management Controls for 1 October 2010
Volume 1
Final Advice Paper
And
Recommendations
1 June 2010
3
4
CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7
Removal of under-fishing provisions for Southern Bluefin tuna (STN 1) – Final Advice
Paper .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................... 19
Regulatory measures relating to introduction of Bladder Kelp stocks (KBB3G and KBB4G)
into the Quota Management System on 1 October 2010 – Final Advice Paper ...................... 20
Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................... 27
Regulatory recommendations relating to the introduction of Patagonian Toothfish (PTO) into
the Quota Management System – Final Advice Paper ............................................................ 28
Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................... 38
East Otago Taiapure – recommendation to make regulations– Final Advice Paper ............... 39
Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................... 54
5
6
INTRODUCTION
1
This paper provides you with the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) initial position, final
advice and recommendations on those regulatory measures and other management
controls reviewed for 1 October 2010.
2
This Final Advice Paper (FAP) is produced in two parts:
Volume 1
Final Advice Paper and Recommendations
Volume 2
Initial Position Papers and Submissions
Initial Position Papers
3
The initial position papers (IPPs) were developed for consultation as required under
the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act). They contained MFish’s initial position on the issues
for review. MFish emphasised that the views and recommendations outlined the
papers were preliminary and were being provided as a basis for consultation with
stakeholders.
4
The initial position papers are provided in Volume 2.
Consultation
5
The four issues in this final advice paper were consulted on separately.
6
On 12 January 2010 MFish provided copies of the Removal of underfishing
provisions for Southern Bluefin tuna (STN1) IPP (contained in Volume 2) to iwi,
stakeholders and you. Stakeholders were asked to respond in writing by 12 February
2010.
7
On 11 March 2010 MFish provided copies of the Regulatory measures relating to
introduction of Bladder Kelp stocks (KBB3G and KBB4G) into the Quota
Management System on 1 October 2010 IPP (contained in Volume 2) to iwi,
stakeholders and you. Stakeholders were asked to respond in writing by 16 April
2010.
8
On 4 March 2010 MFish provided copies of the Regulatory recommendations relating
to the introduction of Patagonian Toothfish (PTO) into the Quota Management system
IPP (contained in Volume 2) to iwi, stakeholders and you. Stakeholders were asked to
respond in writing by 15 April 2010.
7
9
On 7 March 2009 MFish provided copies of the East Otago Taiapure –
Recommendation to make regulations IPP (contained in Volume 2) to iwi,
stakeholders and you. Stakeholders were asked to respond in writing by 24 April
2009.
10
The submissions received during the consultation process are included in Volume 2.
Final Advice Paper
11
This paper contains MFish’s final advice to you on the proposals for the 1 October
2010 regulatory round.
12
Each FAP section provides MFish discussion (including an analysis of your statutory
obligations in relation to each issue) and MFish’s preferred options.
13
A summary of recommendations for all of the FAPs is included at the end of each
document.
14
A copy of this advice paper will be made available to iwi and stakeholders who made
a submission on these proposals, following the announcement of your decisions.
Implementation of Decisions
15
Following your final decision on any changes to management controls for 1 October
2010, officials will provide you with a draft letter to stakeholders outlining your
decisions.
8
REMOVAL OF UNDER-FISHING PROVISIONS FOR
SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA (STN 1) – FINAL ADVICE
PAPER
Executive Summary
1
MFish proposes that you agree to recommend placing southern bluefin tuna (STN 1)
on Schedule 5A of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Fisheries Act), to take effect in the
2010-2011 fishing year. This would have the effect of removing provisions that
currently allow for limited carry forward of unfished Annual Catch Entitlements
(ACE) for STN 1.
2
Section 67A of the Fisheries Act provides for limited carry-forward of uncaught ACE
for quota management stocks (currently including STN 1), except those that are listed
on Schedule 5A of the Fisheries Act. The provision allows some flexibility for fishers
to respond to variable fishery conditions, and in biological terms has a neutral
outcome for most species.
3
An Initial Position Paper (IPP) released on 12 January 2010 proposed to place STN 1
on Schedule 5A of the Fisheries Act before 1 October 2010. After considering
submissions, MFish now advises that this action could be deferred until next year (on
or before 30 September 2011).
4
New Zealand’s total allowable catch (TAC) for STN 1 is set based on a national quota
agreed by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT).
MFish initially considered that the associated risk of total catches exceeding New
Zealand’s TAC for southern bluefin tuna agreed through the CCSBT outweighed the
benefits for operational efficiency that section 67A may provide. For this reason, it
was proposed to place southern bluefin tuna on Schedule 5A of the Fisheries Act.
5
Most submitters who commented on this proposal understood the need for removing
under-fishing provisions, although they noted the desirability of investigating future
options to re-gain some of the flexibility provided by the under-fishing rights.
Submitters were however concerned at the potential for unintended consequences
resulting from removing the under-fishing rights, including increased payment of
deemed values and/or dumping of catches.
The Issue
6
For most stocks in the quota management system, section 67A of the Fisheries Act
enables a limited carry-forward of unfished ACE, in addition to the ACE generated
through ownership of quota shares. This means ACE in any given season may exceed
the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC). Catches could therefore exceed the
TACC without any penalty provisions applying. In most situations this is a useful
9
provision to allow for some additional flexibility for fishers to manage their fishing
operations, and does not affect sustainability of the fishstock.
7
As a founding member of CCSBT, New Zealand cooperates with other members to
ensure, through appropriate management, the conservation and optimum utilisation of
southern bluefin tuna. New Zealand has advocated for CCSBT to adopt over- and
under-fishing provisions to provide flexibility at a national level, but to date CCSBT
has been unable to agree such a system.
8
In the context of an increasing focus on ensuring countries do not exceed their
allocations, MFish proposed to remove provisions allowing for limited carry-forward
of unfished ACE for the STN 1 fishery. Although in general these provisions can
provide some additional flexibility in a fishery where annual catches may fluctuate, in
this situation the risks were considered to outweigh the benefits. In addition, past
practice has been to reduce country allocations in the following year by the amount of
any overcatch that occurs in a given year. Therefore, if the under-fishing provisions
did lead to over-catch of the New Zealand allocation (as is possible), quota holders’
allocations would be decreased as a result.
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
9
The IPP proposed the following options:
a) Option one – status quo (no action): provisions remain in place for the carry
forward of 10% of unfished ACE from one fishing season to the next
b) Option two – remove under-fishing provisions: place STN 1 on Schedule 5A of
the Fisheries Act, effective from 1 October 2010.
Final Proposal
MFish recommends that you:
(i) agree to recommend that STN 1 be placed on Schedule 5A of the Fisheries
Act, to have effect from the 2011-12 fishing year and thereafter (MFishpreferred option).
OR
i.
Maintain the status quo (i.e. continue to allow for the carry-forward of up to
10% unfished ACE as provided for by s 67A of the Fisheries Act).
10
Consultation
10
On 12 January 2010 MFish, on behalf of the Minister, released an IPP for public
consultation. 1 The IPP was distributed to STN 1 ACE and quota holders and other
stakeholder groups, as well as being published on the MFish website.
Submissions Received
11
MFish received submissions on the IPP from:
•
Ben Turner
•
Independent Fisheries
•
New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen (Inc.)
•
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council
•
New Zealand Sport Fishing Council
•
Sanford Ltd
•
Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC)
•
Solander Ltd
•
Stu Morrison (Tasman Tuna)
•
Te Ohu Kai Moana (on behalf of Te Ohu Kai Moana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd)
MFish Discussion
Overview of submissions
12
Recreational organisations NZRFC and NZSFC both support removal of the underfishing rights.
13
Submitters from industry valued the flexibility offered by the carry-forward
provisions, and were generally reluctant for the provision to be removed, despite
understanding of the need to remain within New Zealand’s country allocation.
14
Solander, Sanford, Te Ohu Kai Moana and SeaFIC generally outlined their
understanding of the need to place STN 1 on Schedule 5A at this time, although
emphasising the need for an alternative to be found in the future.
15
Fishers Ben Turner and Stu Morrison were concerned that if there is no carry-forward
of unfished ACE, the risk of the catch limit being fully or over-caught could in fact
increase. Due to the high value of the fishery and STN 1 quota, fishers may wish to
maximise their investment by fully catching their ACE early in the season (rather than
run the risk of not being able to catch it later on, for example if conditions later in the
season deteriorate). However, this would mean that ACE may not be available to
cover any catches of southern bluefin tuna taken later in the season as bycatch of other
1
The initial proposal was included in consultation on an in-season review of the catch limit for STN 1. Separate
advice was provided to the Minister on that topic.
11
longline fisheries. This situation could lead to either dumping of fish, or to the
payment of deemed values. The annual deemed value for southern bluefin tuna is set
at $46.92 per kg, so this would potentially be a substantial cost to fishers, given an
average fish size of 70-100kg.
16
Ben Turner also considered it unlikely that New Zealand will exceed the catch limit
(if increased) in the next two years, which would require two very good seasons in a
row. As a compromise position, Mr Turner suggested that the carry-forward
provision could be reduced to 5% (instead of the current 10%).
17
Independent Fisheries noted the variable nature of catches in the southern bluefin tuna
fishery, which makes it desirable to retain the carry-forward provisions. Independent
Fisheries considered retaining these provisions would ensure good fishing and
marketing practices.
18
The Federation of Commercial Fishermen was opposed to the proposal, which it
viewed as the removal of an existing right and therefore a further reduction in the
property rights of quota owners. The Federation was also concerned that other
members of CCSBT should also fully comply with agreements such as catch limits
that New Zealand adhered to.
MFish discussion of issues raised
19
MFish recognises the benefits the present under-fishing provisions provide for fishers.
For this reason, the provisions were retained in 2004 when southern bluefin tuna was
introduced into the quota management system, despite an initial proposal to add the
species to Schedule 5A at that time. However, since then New Zealand has tried
unsuccessfully to gain wider recognition within CCSBT of the advantages of such a
system. Further, CCSBT members face increasing scrutiny over their ability to ensure
catch limits are not exceeded.
20
In this situation, MFish considers it is necessary to remove under-fishing provisions
for STN 1. However, MFish will – as requested by several submitters – continue to
work towards a more satisfactory long-term resolution of this problem within CCSBT.
To this end New Zealand has included consideration of under- and over-fishing as an
action in a draft strategic plan for CCSBT.
21
Further, MFish has given further consideration to alternative ways to mitigate the risk
in the short-term that New Zealand catches will exceed the country allocation. In
October 2009, CCSBT agreed on two-year catch limits for member countries. New
Zealand has committed to a two-year catch limit of no more than 570t (for each of the
2009-10 and 2010-11 fishing years, with flexibility to transfer catch between years).
If catches were to exceed the catch limit in the current fishing year, the catch limit
could potentially be adjusted as required next year to ensure total catches over the two
year period do not exceed 1,140t.
22
MFish therefore now considers it preferable to remove the underfishing provisions
with effect from the 30th of September 2011, rather than in 2010 as originally
proposed. This would mean that any unfished ACE would carry forward from the
current (2009-10) fishing year, but that no carry forward would occur in subsequent
years. However, it remains open for you to recommend the removal of the
12
underfishing provisions this year (on or before 30 September 2010). This would have
the effect of preventing the carry forward of unfished ACE from this year (2009-10)
to next year (2010-11).
23
Fishers who bought or sold ACE in the current season made commercial decisions
based on an assumption that underfishing rights would apply. Retaining underfishing
rights for an additional year would provide fishers with greater advance notice of the
change to be made. Commercial decisions made in the 2010-11 and subsequent
fishing years would be under the understanding that no underfishing rights would
apply (if STN 1 is placed on Schedule 5A).
24
In relation to the concern that removal of the underfishing provisions would be a
reduction in the property rights of quota owners, MFish does not consider the
situation would amount to removal of an existing right – the right is already limited
and the power to remove the ability to carry-forward ACE is clearly prescribed in the
Fisheries Act.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
25
Retaining limited carry forward of uncaught ACE for STN 1 under section 67A of the
Fisheries Act provides some flexibility for fishers to manage their fishing operations.
In biological terms this would have a neutral outcome for southern bluefin tuna (i.e. it
makes little difference if the 10% of fish that may be carried forward is taken in one
fishing year or the next; the provision does not allow for an overall increase in
catches, but for the redistribution of some catch from one year to the next).
Costs
26
Analysis of the current operation of the under-fishing provisions suggests there is a
risk of catches exceeding New Zealand’s allocation if the available amount of ACE
were fully caught in a given year. In 2008-09, commercial catches were 417t from a
TACC of 413t but available ACE of 455.8t. Total New Zealand catches in that year,
including non-commercial catches, were estimated at 419t, from a country allocation
of 420t. There is increasing scrutiny within CCSBT of members’ ability to ensure
catches remain within their country allocations. 2 Further, the costs of any overcatch
are transferred from ACE holders to quota holders.
27
Catches for STN 1 can be variable but have been generally increasing for several
years since a low of 238t in 2005-06. Low catches in that and subsequent years can
be attributed partly to a lack of small fish entering the fishery. The availability of fish
of a range of sizes has improved in recent seasons. Although it is difficult to predict
catches in advance, there is an appreciable risk of exceeding the catch limit. Even the
4t overcatch of the TACC in the 2008-09 fishing year is potentially embarrassing to
2
No ACE is carried forward in a year in which the TACC is reduced, so the presence of under-fishing provisions would not
affect New Zealand’s ability to ensure catches do not exceed the catch limit in a situation in which CCSBT reduces New
Zealand’s allocation.
13
New Zealand, as a nation that consistently advocates for strong adherence to
conservation and management measures.
Benefits
28
Maintaining the status quo would provide some benefits to individual fishers (ACE
holders), particularly since there is a risk in purchasing ACE for any given season that
conditions will not be favourable for obtaining a return on that investment. The
fishing season for southern bluefin tuna is relatively short, and total catches can be
affected by a range of factors including weather and sea conditions, market
conditions, and availability of fish in New Zealand waters. Providing fishers with the
ability to carry forward some of the ACE (up to 10%) may provide encouragement to
invest in the fishery, with benefits for New Zealand if this leads to maximisation of
catches within the country allocation.
29
In the current fishing season, under-fishing ACE was allocated to 68 ACE holders,
with volumes ranging from 1kg to 22.2t. The average amount of ACE carried forward
was 629kg (all but seven individual holders received a carry forward of less than 1t).
Although calculations could be made to place a value on the carry forward of this
ACE, it should be noted that this is not so much the creation of value as its transfer
from one season to the next (i.e. this value would only be available in a given season
if it hadn’t been realised in the previous season). 3 Further, the potential value
provided by any carry forward depends on the circumstances of the fishery; in any
year that the catch limit is reduced for the stock, there would be no carry forward of
unfished ACE (s 67A(3)(b)).
Option 2 – remove under-fishing provisions from 2010-11 fishing year
onwards
Impact
30
Placing STN 1 on Schedule 5A would mean that unfished ACE could no longer be
carried forward to the subsequent fishing season. This means that total ACE available
within the fishing season would be equal to the TACC, and would not exceed it, thus
lessening the risk of total catches exceeding the TAC. Given the level at which the
deemed values are set for STN 1, there is considered to be little risk of catches
exceeding the TACC because of catches in excess of ACE.
31
The proposal to place STN 1 on Schedule 5A would take effect from 1 October 2011,
which would mean that unfished ACE could be carried forward from the current
fishing year into the 2010-11 fishing year, but not in subsequent years. This option
presents a balance between mitigating the risks associated with excess ACE being
available in the fishery, while allowing fishers some further time to organise their
operations to deal with the new arrangements. In particular, commercial decisions
have been made on purchasing ACE under the assumption that underfishing
provisions would apply in the current year. In the short term, MFish has outlined an
alternative way of mitigating the risk that total catches exceed the country allocation.
3
Based on an export value of $33.36 per kg for frozen whole southern bluefin tuna in 2008, this would equate to an average
value of the ACE that was able to be carried forward of approximately $20,980 (assuming it was fully caught in the
following season).
14
32
MFish originally consulted on removing the under-fishing provisions with immediate
effect (i.e. so there would be no carry forward from the 2009-10 fishing year to the
2010-11 fishing year). MFish now considers that the option outlined here would be
preferable, since it has the same ultimate benefit (reducing the risk of catches
exceeding the New Zealand allocation), while providing a somewhat lower cost to
fishers in the short term, since it would allow them some additional flexibility for
another season.
33
Further, this option may make it easier to implement any CCSBT decisions in the
interim that do recognise and allow for some form of carry forward of uncaught catch
entitlements. As outlined above, there are alternative means for mitigating the risk of
catches exceeding the allocation in the short term. Nonetheless, you could still choose
to remove under-fishing rights in the fishery for the current fishing year, for example
if you are not satisfied that the risk of catches exceeding the allocation can be
adequately mitigated in other ways in the short term.
Costs
34
As noted, removing the under-fishing provisions would reduce the flexibility of
individual fishers to respond to conditions in a given fishing season. If conditions are
poor in one year, fishers have the chance to re-coup at least some of their foregone
catches in the following season. Fishers have also identified additional concerns
about the potential for increased dumping of fish, or high deemed value payments, if
they have less flexibility to manage their catches and are instead seeking solely to
maximise catch in a single season. Given that the deemed value rate is set at an
interim rate of $23.46/kg and an annual rate of $46.92/kg, and average fish size is
around 100kg, this could lead to substantial deemed value payments (e.g. around
$4,600 for a single fish if no ACE was available at the end of the fishing season to
cover catches).
35
Fishers have also submitted that if there is no carry forward of unfished ACE, they
consider the risk of the catch limit being fully or over-caught could in fact increase.
Due to the high value of the fishery and STN 1 quota, fishers may wish to maximise
their investment by fully catching their ACE early in the season (rather than run the
risk of not being able to catch it later on, for example if conditions later in the season
deteriorate). However, this would mean that ACE may not be available to cover any
catches of southern bluefin tuna taken later in the season as bycatch of other longline
fisheries. As noted, this situation could lead to either dumping of fish, or to the
payment of deemed values.
Benefits
36
The primary benefit from removing underfishing provisions is to achieve greater
certainty that catches of southern bluefin tuna will not exceed New Zealand’s country
allocation. If the overfishing provisions are removed, ACE in any given season could
only be equal to the TACC, and could not exceed it. Achieving this is in turn has
benefits because of the importance of meeting New Zealand’s international
obligations. After a period in which some members had poor compliance with
conservation measures adopted by the CCSBT, there is now an increased focus on
compliance. CCSBT has an informal agreement that overcatch in any year is paid
back in the next year.
15
37
Commercial fishers (and quota holders) would be affected if catches exceed the catch
limit because of use of the under-fishing provisions. In this situation, New Zealand
would be expected to reduce the catch limit by the amount of overcatch. This could
lead to inequitable outcomes since those who would be affected (quota holders) are
not necessarily the same people who benefited from the under-fishing provisions
(ACE holders).
Other Management Controls
38
During initial consultation, MFish noted it would consider any alternative proposals
from industry to manage the situation. One suggestion received was to limit carry
forward to only 5% of unfished ACE (rather than 10%), but this would also require
legislative change, since s 67A specifies the amount of unfished ACE that may be
carried forward.
Statutory Considerations
39
Section 67A of the Fisheries Act outlines the provisions for allocation of additional
ACE in case of underfishing. Section 67B provides for amendments to Schedule 5A,
which sets out stocks to which s 67A does not apply. These sections do not establish
specific matters for you to consider when deciding to add or remove a stock from
Schedule 5A. However, general statutory considerations are outlined in the appendix.
Other Management Issues
40
As noted, MFish intends to continue to canvas support amongst CCSBT for formal
provision for underfishing rights. Development of a strategic plan for CCSBT, the
draft of which includes investigation of flexible management options (including for
under- and over-fishing) will provide the next opportunity to do so. If agreement is
reached on allowing for underfishing, STN 1 could be removed from Schedule 5A as
necessary.
16
Appendices
Statutory Considerations
41
In forming the management options, the following statutory considerations have been
taken into account:
a)
Section 5(a)— international obligations: Removing underfishing provisions
for STN 1 is proposed in order to better fulfil New Zealand’s obligations as a
signatory to the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. In
particular, New Zealand is obliged to ensure its catches remain within the
agreed national allocation set by the CCSBT, and implemented domestically as
a TAC. MFish considers removing the underfishing provisions would provide
greater certainty of meeting this obligation. Maintaining the status does mean
a higher risk of fishers fully catching the available ACE (and thus exceeding
the catch limit) in a given year. The degree of risk depends on how the fishery
will operate in a given year, which is difficult to predict in advance.
b)
Section 8—purpose: The purpose of the Act is “to provide for the utilisation
of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability”. This is a core obligation
to heed when considering the management options. The decision on whether
or not to remove underfishing provisions is to some extent a balance between
ensuring sustainability (and meeting international obligations), by ensuring
catches remain within the TAC; and allowing for utilisation, including the
flexibility for fishers to manage their fishing operations using the underfishing
provisions. However, it should also be noted that retaining the underfishing
provisions would have implications for utilisation of the stock, particularly in
situations in which the catch limit is exceeded and subsequently the TAC is
reduced in the following year.
c)
Section 9 – Environmental Principles: Section 9 establishes the following
environmental principles that have to be taken into account by decision
makers:
(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.
In relation to this proposal, neither retaining the status quo nor removing the
underfishing provisions is considered likely to affect the criteria outlined in
section 9.
d)
Section 10 – Information principles: some uncertainty exists in relation to
both the likely risk of catches exceeding the TAC in any given year if ACE is
carried forward; and in relation to precise impacts on fishers if the
underfishing provisions are removed. MFish considers the best available
information constitutes evidence of past catches, including assessment of the
availability of southern bluefin tuna in New Zealand waters in recent seasons.
This information suggests some risk of catches exceeding the catch limit, as
they came very close to doing in 2008-09. In the short term this risk is
17
mitigated by the increased catch limit available to New Zealand in 2010 and
2011. For this reason the proposal is to place STN 1 on Schedule 5A in 2011
(rather than 2010). In relation to impacts on fishers, submissions on the IPP
have provided additional information on the impacts, which must be balanced
against the risks associated with exceeding the country allocation.
e)
Sections 67A and 67B: Section 67A of the Fisheries Act outlines the
provisions for allocation of additional ACE in case of underfishing. Section
67B provides for amendments to Schedule 5A, which sets out stocks to which
s 67A does not apply. These sections do not establish specific matters for you
to consider when deciding to add or remove a stock from Schedule 5A, but the
general statutory considerations outlined above are of relevance in making
your decision.
18
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
42
MFish recommends that you:
(i) agree to recommend that STN 1 be placed on Schedule 5A of the Fisheries Act, to
have effect from the 2011-12 fishing year and thereafter (MFish-preferred option).
OR
(ii) Maintain the status quo (i.e. continue to allow for the carry-forward of up to 10%
unfished ACE as provided for by s 67A of the Fisheries Act).
Leigh Mitchell
For Chief Executive
APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/APPROVED AS AMENDED
Hon Phil Heatley
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
/
/2010
19
REGULATORY
MEASURES
RELATING
TO
INTRODUCTION OF BLADDER KELP STOCKS (KBB3G
AND KBB4G) INTO THE QMS ON 1 OCTOBER 2010 –
FINAL ADVICE PAPER
43
Figure 1.
Quota Management Areas (QMAs) for attached bladder kelp.
Executive Summary
1
Macrocystis pyrifera (bladder kelp) is a large seaweed species occurring throughout
New Zealand. Attached bladder kelp in Fishery Management Areas (FMAs) 3 and 4
will enter the Quota Management System (QMS) on 1 October 2010. The Quota
Management Areas (QMAs) for KBB3G and KBB4G are shown in Figure 1.
2
An Initial Position Paper (IPP) released 4 March 2010, proposed a number of
sustainability management measures and the following regulatory measures:
a) Amend the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 to outline the codes to be used
by commercial seaweed fishers when completing their statutory catch returns; and
b) Add KBB3G and KBB4G to the Sixth Schedule of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the
Act).
3
This Final Advice Paper only addresses the regulatory measures proposed in the IPP.
4
With regard to reporting codes, MFish’s preferred option is that the codes for bladder
kelp are specified in the Reporting Regulations. It is necessary for the reporting codes
to be consistent with other QMS species, enable collection of catch information, and
in this case to provide for differentiation among stages in their life history that are not
a part of the QMS.
5
Allowing fishers to return bladder kelp to sea by listing it on the Sixth Schedule
enables quota holders to maximise the value of attached bladder kelp annual catch
20
entitlement (ACE). Allowing fishers to return bladder kelp is appropriate in this case
as the activity does not undermine management objectives for bladder kelp fisheries,
which are to ensure sustainable utilisation, credible fisheries management and achieve
maximum value.
6
After assessing the best available information, the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish)
recommends that the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 are amended to include
reporting codes for bladder kelp in FMAs 3 and 4 and that you add KBB3G and
KBB4G to the Sixth Schedule of the Act. MFish also recommends that and to support
the entry of attached bladder kelp into the QMS. All submissions that addressed these
issues also support MFish’s initial proposals.
The Issue
7
On 6 November 2009 you, by notice in the New Zealand Gazette, declared that
attached bladder kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) in FMAs 3 and 4 would be subject to the
QMS on and from 1 October 2010. Free-floating and beach-cast bladder kelp will be
managed outside of the QMS, under an open access fishery.
8
Concurrently, you also defined the QMAs (Figure 1) for attached bladder kelp, which
will be referred to as KBB3G (South-East (Coast), FMA 3) and KBB4G (South-East
(Chatham Rise), FMA 4), and that the fishing year will begin on 1 October and end on
30 September in the following year. The Total Allowable Catches (TACs), Total
Allowable Commercial Catches (TACCs) and ACE will be expressed in terms of
greenweight (kilograms, kg).
9
The Act requires all commercial catch of QMS stocks be landed and reported.
Exceptions to this rule exist for stocks listed on the Act’s Sixth Schedule.
Commercial fishers targeting other species may inevitably take attached bladder kelp
as a direct consequence of certain harvesting methods within the vicinity of kelp beds.
A requirement to land this seaweed and balance catches with ACE (a default
requirement under the QMS) will impose an unnecessary cost on these fishers.
10
The reporting codes to be used by commercial fishers from 1 October 2010 will be
different from those currently in use. Reporting codes are specified in the Reporting
Regulations and it is necessary to update these regulations when attached bladder kelp
enters the QMS.
Consultation
11
MFish released an IPP for public consultation on 4 March 2010. The IPP was
published on the MFish external website and sent to person and organisation with an
interest in reviews of fisheries’ sustainability measures, and those having an interest
in bladder kelp specifically; including tangata whenua, and environmental,
recreational and commercial sector stakeholders.
Submissions Received
12
MFish received 32 submissions on the IPP from:
21
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mark Armstrong (Armstrong)
Chatham Islands Council (CIC)
Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust (CIET)
H N Daymond (Daymond)
Kotuku Daymond (K Daymond)
Department of Conservation (DOC)
East Otago Taiapure Management Committee (EOTMC)
Forest & Bird
Graham Harris (Harris)
Dr. Christopher Hepburn (Hepburn)
Ada Hough (Hough)
Dr. Catriona Hurd, Dr. C. Hepburn, Chris Cornwall, Rebecca James, Daniel
Pritchard, Derek Richards (Hurd et al.)
Kati Huirapa Runaka I Puketeraki (Puketeraki)
Dr. Rebecca McLeod (McLeod)
Dr. Wendy A. Nelson (Nelson)
New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd. (SeaFIC)
NZ Rock Lobster Industry Council (NZRLIC)
Nga Hapu o te Uru Forum (Te Uru)
Ngäi Tahu Seafood (Ngäi Tahu)
Ocean Organics Ltd. (Ocean Organics)
option4
Pä Tangaroa Customary Fisheries Forum (Pä Tangaroa)
Paua Industry Council Ltd. (PIC)
PauaMAC4 Industry Association Inc. (PauaMAC4)
Laura Robertson (Robertson)
Sea-Right Investments Ltd. (Sea-Right)
Seaweed Association of New Zealand Inc. (SANZ)
Te Ohu Kaimoana Trustee Ltd. (Te Ohu)
B J Thomas (BJ Thomas)
Brian Thomas (Thomas)
Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers’ Association Inc. (WRMFA)
Robert Win (Win)
Overview of Submissions
13
Of the submissions MFish received 32 on the IPP, only 4 commented on the proposed
regulatory measures. The rest commented only on TAC setting. TAC setting will be
addressed in a subsequent paper for KBB3G and KBB4G.
Amending Reporting Regulations
14
One submission supported the proposal to amend the Fisheries (Reporting)
Regulations 2001 to include reporting codes for bladder kelp stocks.
Addition to Sixth Schedule
15
Three submissions indicated support for adding KBB3G and KBB4G to the Sixth
22
Schedule of the Act to allow a commercial fisher to return previously attached bladder
kelp to sea.
Rationale for Management Options
16
The purpose of the Act (s 8) is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources
while ensuring sustainability. None of the regulatory options proposed is contrary to
the purpose of the Act.
17
Section 10 of the Act sets out the information principles, which require that decisions
be based on the best available information, taking into account any uncertainty in that
information and applying caution when information is uncertain, unreliable, or
inadequate. In accordance with s 10, the absence of information should not be used as
a reason to postpone, or fail to take, any measure to achieve the purpose of the Act,
including providing for utilisation at levels considered to be sustainable.
18
Information sources relied upon for this final advice paper primarily include an MFish
information brief on New Zealand seaweeds, an Initial Position Paper (IPP) entitled
Introduction of Bladder kelp Seaweed, Macrocystis pyrifera (KBB), in Fisheries
Management Areas 3 and 4 into the Quota management System on 1 October 2010
(dated 21 August 2009), scientific papers, and information provided in submissions
received in response to the IPP associated with this final advice paper.
19
Section 297 of the Act empowers the Governor-General to make regulations for
certain purposes. MFish considers that the proposed changes to the Act and Fisheries
(Reporting) Regulations 2001 fit within the relevant provisions of s 297.
Amendments to reporting regulations
20
The introduction of attached bladder kelp into the QMS requires an amendment to the
Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 to prescribe reporting codes for bladder kelp
stocks that commercial fishers must use when completing their statutory catch returns.
MFish proposes to insert a new Table into Part 1 of Schedule 3 of those regulations
incorporating the following reporting codes, for example:
21
25
Species
Bladder kelp
(Macrocystis
pyrifera)
22
Quota
management area
name
26
South-East
(Coast)
29
30
33
34
37
23
27
31
35
38
South-East
(Chatham Rise)
39
23
Stage in their
life history
24
Fishstock
code for use in
returns
Attached
28
KBB3G
Free-floating
32
KBB3F
Beach-cast
36
KBB3B
Attached
40
KBB4G
41
42
43
Free-floating
44
KBB4F
45
The two submissions (SeaFIC, Te Ohu) that commented specifically on the reporting
codes for KBB3G and KBB4G support MFish’s initial position.
46
The differentiation of attached, free-floating and beach-cast bladder kelp harvest will
improve catch information and provide a better basis for assessing harvest trends over
time. No fishstock code is specified for beach-cast seaweed on the Chatham Islands
because commercial harvest of beach-cast seaweed is currently prohibited in this
FMA.
47
MFish recommends you agree to amend the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001
to include reporting codes for bladder kelp in FMAs 3 and 4.
48
MFish considers this regulatory measure would not materially affect the principles
outlined under s 9 of the Act.
Return of attached bladder kelp to the sea
49
MFish proposed that KBB3G and KBB4G are added to the Sixth Schedule of the Act
to enable commercial fishers to immediately return unwanted previously attached
bladder kelp to the sea (e.g. taken as incidental bycatch).
50
Section 9 of the Act prescribes three environmental principles that the Minister must
take into account when exercising powers in relation to utilising fisheries resources
and ensuring sustainability.
51
•
Section 9(a) requires that associated or dependent species should be maintained
above a level that ensures their long-term viability.
•
Section 9(b) requires the maintenance of biological diversity of the aquatic
environment be taken into account.
•
Section 9(c) requires the protection of habitats of particular significance to
fisheries management.
Attached bladder kelp plays a critical role in coastal, inshore and estuarine
environments by providing a wide and diverse range of ecosystem services. These
services include:
a) Providing an important nursery, shelter, and refuge habitats for a wide variety of
coastal and inshore species (e.g. paua, kina, butterfish);
b) Providing food for a wide range of species (e.g. kina, paua, butterfish), which in
turn supports a variety of coastal, inshore and estuarine foodwebs and fisheries;
c) Modifying wave and tidal action, and thereby influencing coastal physical
processes such as erosion, siltation, and sunlight penetration;
d) Driving primary production and energy cycling; and
24
e) Possibly inhibiting the presence and spread of the invasive seaweed Undaria
pinnatifida.
52
Commercial fishers inevitably take attached bladder kelp as a direct consequence of
using fishing gear (ie, set and trawl nets) within the vicinity of kelp beds.
A requirement to land this seaweed and balance catches with ACE will impose an
unnecessary cost on these fishers. Additionally, differentiation of previously attached
bladder kelp versus bladder kelp that was already free-floating would be extremely
difficult for both fishers and fishery officers, further compounding unnecessary costs.
53
Previously attached bladder kelp could be returned to the sea regardless of its
condition, unlike most species listed on the Sixth Schedule, which can only be
returned if likely to survive. Bladder kelp provides a variety of important ecological
functions in all three of its physical states (beach-cast, free-floating, and attached).
MFish considers that the ability to return to sea previously attached bladder kelp will
enable the species, in its free-floating stage, to potentially reproduce, provide for
dispersal of the species, and/or act as refuge areas for juvenile and larval fish.
54
MFish considers that adding bladder kelp to the Sixth Schedule would not materially
affect the ecological functions it provides in its attached stage, but rather enable
bladder kelp to perform subsequential ecological functions when free-floating and/or
beach-cast.
55
The four submissions (PIC, NZRLIC, SeaFIC, and Te Ohu) that addressed this issue
support MFish’s proposal and MFish recommends that you agree that KBB3G and
KBB4G be added to the Sixth Schedule.
Conclusion
56
Having considered best available information and information in the submissions,
MFish recommends that you:
a) Agree to amend the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 to outline the
fishstock codes to be used by commercial seaweed fishers when completing their
statutory catch returns; and
b) Agree to add KBB3G and KBB4G to the Sixth Schedule of the Fisheries Act 1996
(the Act).
57
This is because:
a) The reporting codes for all other QMS species are specified in the Fisheries
(Reporting) Regulations 2001 and it would be inconsistent if attached bladder kelp
reporting codes were not added. If they were not added MFish would be unable to
collect information on catches of QMS stocks that is used to make management
decisions. Revised reporting codes for the differentiation among stages in the
species’ life history that are not a part of the QMS would provide useful
information on their different harvest yields for future management purposes; and
b) Allowing fishers to return previously attached bladder kelp to sea by listing it on
the Sixth Schedule enables quota holders to maximise the value of attached
25
bladder kelp ACE and reduce complications associated with monitoring and
compliance, without undermining the management objectives for bladder kelp
fisheries.
26
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
58
I recommend that you:
a) Agree to amend the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 to outline the relevant
fishstock codes to be used by commercial fishers when completing their statutory
catch returns; and
b) Agree to add KBB3G and KBB4G to the Sixth Schedule of the Fisheries Act
1996 (the Act).
Leigh Mitchell
For Chief Executive
APPROVED/NOT APPROVED/APPROVED AS AMENDED
Hon Phil Heatley
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
/
/2010
27
REGULATORY RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO
THE INTRODUCTION OF PATAGONIAN TOOTHFISH
(PTO) INTO THE QUOTA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM –
FINAL ADVICE PAPER
1
This Final Advice Paper (FAP) provides you with the Ministry of Fisheries’ (MFish)
recommendations on regulatory measures necessary to support the introduction of
Patagonian toothfish into the Quota Management System (QMS) on 1 October 2010.
2
Three of the four recommendations involve amendments to regulations. In order to
allow sufficient time for those regulatory amendments to be progressed, MFish
requests that you make your determination on or before 15 June 2010.
3
The recommendation that does not require a regulatory amendment will be
implemented by Gazette notice. Should you agree with MFish’s recommendations, a
copy of the Gazette notice is attached for your signature.
4
An additional Final Advice Paper addressing issues such as the total allowable catch
and deemed value rates will be provided to you in August 2010 as part of the October
2010 sustainability round.
Executive summary
5
On 4 March 2010 you declared, by notice in the New Zealand Gazette, that Patagonian
toothfish would be subject to the QMS on and from 1 October 2010 with a single Quota
Management Area (QMA) encompassing all New Zealand fisheries waters.
6
MFish recommends that you agree to the following regulatory measures to support the
introduction of toothfish into the QMS:
a) That the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 be amended to include the
reporting code for toothfish that should be used when completing returns required
by those regulations;
b) That toothfish be added to Schedule 5 of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act) to allow
a person to own quota up to the equivalent of 45% of the total allowable
commercial catch (TACC) for toothfish;
c) That toothfish be added to the Sixth Schedule of the Act to enable the species to
be returned to the sea with the associated requirements that fish are likely to
survive on return, that the return takes place as soon as practicable after the fish is
taken and that trawl-caught fish can only be returned in the presence of an MFish
observer; and
d) That the Fisheries (Seabird Sustainability Measures – Bottom Longlines) Notice
(No. 2) 2008 be revoked, and replaced with a Gazette Notice made under
regulation 58A of the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001, issued by
28
the chief executive, to enable toothfish to be returned to the sea (under the
provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Act) during hauling from the same side of
a vessel on which the hauling station is located. Discharging during hauling on the
same side of the vessel where the hauling station is located is currently prohibited
because of the risk of seabird interactions. This proposal will enable bottom
longline vessels to more easily return tagged toothfish to the sea.
7
As toothfish is a stock that straddles the high seas and Australia’s EEZ, New Zealand
has cooperation and management compatibility obligations under the United Nations
(UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. MFish is
satisfied that all proposals in this FAP are consistent with these obligations.
Regulatory impact analysis requirements
8
A Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) is a summary of the key information that
decision-makers need to know in order to make an informed decision on regulatory
changes by assessing the likely impact from making such changes. Three of the
recommendations addressed in this FAP require a RIS as they will require subsequent
approval from Cabinet. The RIS is attached to this FAP for your reference. It has been
reviewed internally within MFish and meets the quality assurance criteria. It will
accompany the Cabinet paper that you will present to Cabinet should you approve the
recommendations outlined in this paper.
9
The recommendation relating to vessels returning toothfish to the sea from the same
side of the vessel on which the hauling station is located has not been included in the
RIS as it does not require a decision from Cabinet and is therefore exempt from RIS
requirements.
The issue
10
On 4 March 2010 you declared, by notice in the New Zealand Gazette, that Patagonian
toothfish stocks would be subject to the QMS on and from 1 October 2010. You also
defined the QMA (as shown in Figure 1 below), agreed that toothfish would be subject
to the 1 October fishing year and agreed that the Total Allowable Commercial Catch
(TACC) and annual catch entitlement be expressed in greenweight.
11
Additional management controls are necessary to support the introduction of toothfish
into the QMS on 1 October 2010. This FAP deals solely with consequential regulatory
measures. Other measures such as setting a Total Allowable Catch (TAC), TACC and
deemed value rates for the toothfish stock, will be addressed in a subsequent FAP.
29
Figure 1. Map showing Patagonian toothfish (PTO) quota management area.
Consultation
12
MFish consulted on the IPP between 11 March and 16 April 2010. It was available on
the MFish website and key stakeholders were advised directly that the IPP was
available on the website.
Submissions received
13
Submissions on the IPP were received from:
a) Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd (TOKM)
b) The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd (SeaFIC)
c) Talley’s Group Ltd (Talley’s)
d) Sanford Ltd (Sanford)
Recommended regulatory measures
Amendments to reporting regulations
14
The introduction of toothfish into the QMS requires an amendment to the Fisheries
(Reporting) Regulations 2001 to prescribe the reporting code that commercial fishers
must use when completing their statutory catch returns. Specifically, MFish
recommends that you agree that Table 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 3 of those regulations
30
be amended to incorporate the following reporting code in line with the QMA for
toothfish: PTO1.
15
All submissions received supported this proposal.
Addition to Schedule 5 of Fisheries Act 1996 (aggregation limits)
16
New species can be added to Schedule 5 of the Act following consultation. 4 MFish
proposes you recommend to the Governor-General that toothfish be added to
Schedule 5 of the Act to allow a person to own quota up to the equivalent of 45% of
the TACC for toothfish. Most deepwater species are already listed in this Schedule
and the addition of toothfish is consistent with the policy relating to addition of
further species to this Schedule.
17
The default restriction on quota aggregation is that no person may own quota for a
species that is equivalent to more than 35% of the combined TACCs for that species.
The only exceptions are for rock lobster, paua and bluenose (where stricter restrictions
apply) as well as the species listed on Schedule 5 of the Act, for which the
aggregation limit is 45%. 5
18
In 2006 the then Minister of Fisheries agreed to the addition of around 30 species to
Schedule 5, of which half were deepwater species. The Minister also agreed to an
analytical process to provide guidance for assessments of a species’ suitability for
addition to Schedule 5. A diagram of that process is presented in Annex One to this
paper.
19
Application of the process to toothfish clearly indicates that this species is suitable for
addition to Schedule 5 of the Act. For example, toothfish is a species that requires
substantial investment in harvesting or processing and requires substantial investment
for science and research purposes. Additionally, quota aggregation should benefit
international competiveness.
20
All submissions received supported this proposal.
Addition to Sixth Schedule of Fisheries Act 1996 (return to sea)
21
Section 72 of the Act provides that no commercial fisher shall return to or abandon in
the sea or any other waters any fish of legal size that is subject to the QMS, with the
exception of species listed in the Sixth Schedule to the Act. Any stock can be added to
the Sixth Schedule by Order in Council made on your recommendation. 6
22
MFish proposes that you agree to recommend to the Governor-General that toothfish
be added to the Sixth Schedule of the Act to enable the species to be returned to the
sea under certain circumstances. This will allow toothfish to be tagged and returned to
the sea, which will be an important component of research undertaken on this species.
4
Fisheries Act 1996, s 59(7)
Fisheries Act 1996, s 59(1)(a)
6
Fisheries Act 1996, s 72(7)
5
31
It will also enable any small fish or fish taken as unwanted bycatch to be returned if
likely to survive.
23
MFish recommends that the conditions relating to adding toothfish to the Sixth
Schedule are that:
a) Only fish that are likely to survive can be returned to the sea;
b) The return takes place as soon as practicable after the fish is taken; and
c) Trawl-caught fish can only be released in the presence of an MFish observer
24
MFish initially proposed that, in addition to the first two conditions above, only fish
taken by the method of bottom longlining would be able to be returned to the sea if
likely to survive.
25
All submitters commented that if a fish is likely to survive then the method by which
it is taken should not matter. MFish notes that the biological characteristics of
toothfish (the lack of a swim bladder) mean this species has a greater chance of being
in good condition when it reaches the surface than species with a swim bladder.
26
Recapture information from the Ross Sea toothfish fisheries already indicates that
longline-caught toothfish can be successfully tagged and released alive. Recapture
information from the Australian Macquarie Island toothfish fishery also indicates that
some trawl-caught toothfish can be successfully tagged and released alive.
27
Trawl-caught toothfish in New Zealand may be taken under different circumstances
than fish from the Macquarie Island toothfish fishery. The Macquarie Island fishery is
a target fishery that takes predominantly juvenile fish from shallower waters and fish
are selected for release by observers. In New Zealand, toothfish are not targeted, are
likely to be taken from deeper waters and are likely to be adults or sub-adults. MFish
does not expect that all trawl-caught toothfish taken in New Zealand will be likely to
survive, but believes that it is reasonable to expect that a proportion of toothfish may
be harvested in good enough condition to satisfy the likely to survive criterion.
28
MFish acknowledges there is a greater risk associated with releasing trawl-caught fish
and recommends that you agree to add a condition to the Sixth Schedule provision
that trawl caught toothfish can only be released in the presence of an MFish observer.
This means the decision about whether a toothfish is likely to survive will be made
independently.
29
Based on available biological and fishery information discussed above MFish is
satisfied that the ability to allow toothfish that are likely to survive to be returned to
the sea should apply to all fishing methods at this stage. MFish notes however, that
there is no guidance for fishers to assist them in assessing whether a toothfish is likely
to survive release. Therefore, if you agree that toothfish should be added to the Sixth
Schedule, MFish will develop such guidelines for toothfish.
30
MFish will review this provision if information becomes available indicating that
toothfish taken by specific fishing methods are unlikely to survive if released.
32
Modification to seabird mitigation measures
31
The Fisheries (Seabird Sustainability Measures – Bottom Longlines) Notice (No. 2)
2008 (the Notice) was issued by the Minister of Fisheries in 2008 pursuant to section
11 of the Act. It details the seabird mitigation measures that must be used by vessels 7
metres or more in overall length that use the method of bottom longlining. Clause 9(2)
of the Notice states that:
Offal or fish may be discharged during the hauling of bottom longlines provided it is
discharged from the side of the vessel that is opposite to the side on which the hauling
station is located.
32
An exemption to this requirement is necessary for toothfish as fish tagged for research
purposes need to be returned to the sea as soon as possible. Due to vessel structure,
the vessels likely to be involved in the toothfish fishery can only return fish to the sea
from the same side of the vessel on which the hauling station is located. In the
absence of an exemption, this would technically breach clause 9(2) of the Notice.
33
There are two options available for exempting toothfish from the existing
requirements. The first is to issue an amended notice under section 11 of the Act. The
second is for the existing Notice to be revoked and replaced with a circular issued
under regulation 58A of the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001.
34
The first option 1 (section 11 notice) would ensure that the necessary amendment is
put in place for toothfish. The disadvantage of this option is that neither the existing
Notice nor any amended notice contain provisions enabling exemptions to be
considered. This means decisions on any future technical changes must be made by
you.
35
The second option (circular issued under regulation 58A of the Fisheries (Commercial
Fishing) Regulations 2001) would also ensure that the necessary amendment is in
place for toothfish. The advantage of using this option is that regulation 58A(1) of
these regulations enables the chief executive to, by notice in the Gazette, issue,
amend, or revoke a circular. This option provides flexibility for any future technical
amendments to be made. Under this option you would be required to revoke the
existing Notice prior to the circular taking effect.
36
MFish therefore recommends that, in order to enable toothfish to be returned to the
sea (under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Act) during hauling from the
same side of a vessel on which the hauling station is located, you agree to revoke the
existing notice. A new notice will be issued by the chief executive under regulation
58A of the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001, to come into effect at
the same time that the existing notice is revoked. Apart from exempting toothfish
from the requirement to be returned to the sea during hauling from the opposite side
of the vessel as the hauling station, the existing Notice will be replicated.
37
MFish’s initial proposal was that the Notice be amended so that the provision applied
only to tagged toothfish. Submitters commented that if fishers are able to return any
live toothfish to the sea under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule (as proposed in the
IPP) then the hauling station provision should encompass all toothfish, not just tagged
33
fish. MFish concurs with this view and has amended the recommendation
accordingly.
38
Submitters also noted that the ability to return fish to the sea from the same side of the
vessel on which the hauling station is located should be extended to all species listed
on the Sixth Schedule in order to ensure the greatest likelihood of survival. While
appreciating the rationale behind this view MFish does not recommend extending the
hauling station provision to all species listed on the Sixth Schedule. To do so would
mean that the provision would apply to all bottom longline vessels longer than 7
metres, not just vessels fishing for toothfish.
39
MFish has worked hard with the inshore longline fleet in recent years to reduce the
risk of incidental interactions with seabirds. MFish is concerned that a provision
allowing some species to be returned to the sea on the same side of the vessel as the
hauling station may result in fishers returning more than just the permitted species.
This may reduce some of the recent gains made in reducing interactions with seabirds.
For this reason MFish proposes that the provision apply just to toothfish, primarily to
enable tagged fish to more easily be returned to the sea.
40
As noted above MFish recommends this amendment be implemented by revoking the
original Notice and issuing a circular, by notification in the Gazette, with the amended
condition. Section 11(1) of the Act enables you to revoke the original Notice but
requires that you consider sections 11(1)(a)-(c) of the Act in doing so.
41
Section 11(1)(a) requires you to consider any effects of fishing on any stock and the
aquatic environment, and s 11(1)(b) requires you to consider any existing controls
under the Act that apply to the stock or area concerned. With the exception of the
hauling station recommendation, which will apply only to toothfish, all other aspects
of the Notice will be replicated in the circular. Section 11(1)(c), which requires you to
consider the natural variability of the stock concerned, is not relevant in this context.
42
Regulation 58A also requires the chief executive to consult, to the extent that is
practicable in the circumstances, with any persons or organisations that the chief
executive considers to be representative of the classes of persons or organisations
likely to be substantially affected. This proposal, to replace the existing notice with a
circular made under regulation 58A of the Commercial Regulations, is supported by
SeaFIC, who notes that it gives greater flexibility for adaptive management of seabird
interactions with bottom longline vessels as information becomes available.
43
MFish notes that the subsequent IPP addressing sustainability measures will consider
whether the existing requirements relating to seabird mitigation measures in the
toothfish fishery, particularly with respect to meeting our international obligations, are
satisfactory.
34
Other considerations
Adverse environmental effects associated with fishing for toothfish
44
For the following reasons MFish does not consider any further regulatory measures are
warranted at this time to specifically address adverse environmental effects associated
with fishing for toothfish:
a) To date toothfish has been targeted using bottom longlines, a method that does not
significantly affect the benthic environment.
b) There are no known habitats of particular significance for fisheries management that
are likely to require protection from fishing for toothfish
c) The large bottom longline vessels that are likely to be used to target toothfish are
already required to deploy mandatory seabird scaring devices while fishing. 7
Bycatch
45
There have been high bycatch rates associated with some of the toothfish fishing. This
is consistent with the exploratory nature of the fishery to date in that fishers are still
trying to find the areas where the ratio of bycatch to target species is lowest. Bycatch
species have varied depending on the areas fished but have included rattail species, a
large undescribed chimaerid (ghost shark) and basketwork eels. Catch of these nonQMS species will be monitored but MFish does not propose any regulatory measures
relating to non-QMS bycatch at this stage.
International context
46
As toothfish is a stock that straddles the high seas and Australia’s EEZ, New Zealand
has cooperation and management compatibility obligations under the United Nations
(UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. MFish is
satisfied that all proposals in this FAP are consistent with these obligations.
47
Analysis of the extent to which domestic toothfish management measures are
compatible with those in other jurisdictions will be undertaken in the subsequent IPP
addressing sustainability measures. That IPP is scheduled to be released for consultation
in June 2010.
7
Fisheries (Seabird Sustainability Measures – Bottom Longlines) Notice (No. 2) 2008
35
ANNEX ONE
Analytical process to assess species’ suitability for addition to
Schedule 5 of Fisheries Act 1996
Consider species
Step
1
Does species require substantial
investment to harvest or process?
Yes
No
2
Does species require substantial
investment in science?
Yes
No
3
No
4
Yes
Would quota aggregation benefit
international competitiveness?
Yes
Would increased aggregation limit availability of bycatch ACE?
No
5
Yes
Is the species a ‘nursery’ or ‘stepping-stone’ species?
No
6
Yes
Would increased aggregation markedly reduce the pool of
willing purchasers of quota?
No
7
Other relevant
considerations?
Yes
Make
determination
No
Yes
Other relevant
considerations?
No
Recommend 5th Schedule:
45% aggregation
Recommend remain at
35% aggregation
36
ANNEX TWO - STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
48
Section 5 relates to international obligations and the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries
Claims) Settlement Act 1992. All proposals contained in this FAP are consistent with
both New Zealand’s international obligations related to fishing and the provisions of
the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
49
Section 8 sets out the purpose of the Act – to provide for the utilisation of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability. The proposals relating to reporting codes,
quota aggregation limits and returning live fish to the sea are consistent with
providing for the utilisation of the toothfish fishery. The proposal relating to seabird
mitigation measures amends an existing provision. However, MFish considers that in
doing this the risk to seabirds will not be increased and that the proposal is consistent
with ensuring sustainability.
50
Section 9 sets out the environmental principles. The proposals relating to reporting
codes, quota aggregation limits and returning live fish to the sea are not directly
relevant to this section. The proposal relating to seabird mitigation measures is
consistent with sections 9(a) (associated or dependent species should be maintained
above a level that ensures their long-term viability) and 9(b) (maintaining biological
diversity of the aquatic environment).
51
Section 10 sets out the information principles. MFish considers the proposals
contained in this IPP are consistent with those principles.
37
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Agree to amend the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 to include the
Patagonian toothfish reporting code to be used by commercial fishers when
completing their statutory catch returns: PTO1;
b)
Agree to recommend that Patagonian toothfish be added to Schedule 5 of the
Fisheries Act 1996 to enable a person to own quota equivalent to 45% of the
total allowable commercial catch for this species;
c)
Agree to recommend that Patagonian toothfish be added to the Sixth Schedule
of the Fisheries Act 1996 to enable this species to be returned to the sea
provided that:
i)
The fish are likely to survive;
ii)
The return takes place as soon as practicable after the fish have been
taken; and
iii)
Trawl-caught fish are only released in the presence of an MFish
observer
d)
Agree to revoke the Fisheries (Seabird Sustainability Measures – Bottom
Longlines) Notice (No. 2) 2008;
e)
Note that all seabird mitigation measures currently required by the Fisheries
(Seabird Sustainability Measures – Bottom Longlines) Notice (No. 2) 2008 will
be replicated in a circular issued under regulation 58A of the Fisheries
(Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 and notified in the New Zealand
Gazette. Additionally, the circular will exempt Patagonian toothfish from the
requirement for fish to be returned to the sea during hauling from the opposite
side of the vessel on which the hauling station is located; and
f)
Sign the attached Gazette notice revoking the Fisheries (Seabird Sustainability
Measures – Bottom Longlines) Notice (No. 2) 2008.
Aoife Martin
Fisheries Manager Deepwater
APPROVED / NOT APPROVED / APPROVED AS AMENDED
Hon Phil Heatley
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
/
/ 2010
38
EAST OTAGO TAIÄPURE – RECOMMENDATION TO
MAKE REGULATIONS – FINAL ADVICE
Executive Summary
1
This paper gives final advice on a recommendation to make regulations to restrict
non-commercial and commercial harvest of shellfish and finfish from within the East
Otago Taiāpure (the Taiāpure).
2
Section 185 of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act) allows a taiāpure-local fishery
management committee to recommend to the Minister of Fisheries (the Minister) the
making of regulations for the conservation and management of fish, aquatic life, or
seaweed in the taiāpure local fishery.
3
The East Otago Taiāpure Management Committee (the Committee) is concerned that
key fishery stocks within the Taiāpure are in a depleted or severely depleted state and
that the current level of harvest is not sustainable. To reduce fishing pressure and
encourage the recovery of these key fish stocks, the Committee has proposed
regulatory changes. The Committee’s recommendations are attached (Appendix 3).
4
Consultation on the Committee’s initial proposal has been completed with
submissions showing a mixture of support and opposition to the proposal. The
Committee has considered all submissions and has chosen not to amend its final
recommendations. The final recommendations are endorsed by all members of the
Committee.
5
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) recommends that you approve the final
recommendations from the East Otago Taiāpure Committee: to reduce amateur bag
limits for shellfish and finfish species within the Taiāpure; set regulatory limits on the
spatial extent of commercial cockle fishing within the Taiāpure; and temporarily close
of the waters around Huriawa Peninsula to both commercial and amateur paua fishing.
6
The Committee’s recommendation is made under s 185 of the Act. The regulations
would be implemented under s 297(1)(a) through amendments to the Fisheries (SouthEast Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986 and the Fisheries (South-East Area
Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986.
The Issue
7
Section 185 of the Act allows a taiāpure-local fishery management committee to
recommend to the Minister the making of regulations under sections 186, 297, or 298
for the conservation and management of fish, aquatic life, or
seaweed in the taiāpure-local fishery.
8
The Kati Huirapa Runanga ki Puketeraki application for a taiāpure-local fishery was
gazetted as the East Otago Taiāpure-Local Fishery in 1999 and the management
committee appointed in 2001. The Committee is made up of representatives from the
following local groups: the East Otago Boating Club, Kati Huirapa Runanga ki
39
Puketeraki, Karitane Commercial Fisherman’s Cooperative, Rivercare-Estuary Care:
Waikouaiti-Karitane and the University of Otago.
9
Having observed fishing practices since the establishment of the Taiāpure, the
Committee considers that immediate action is required to address fishing pressure
within the Taiāpure. The Committee is concerned that key fishery stocks within the
Taiāpure are in a depleted or severely depleted state and that the current level of
harvest is not sustainable.
10
In particular, the Committee has concerns regarding finfish, paua and kina stocks. The
Committee has also expressed concern about the reduced size of cockles and localised
over-fishing within the Taiāpure and the state of the paua populations around the
Huriawa Peninsula.
11
Consultation on the Committee’s recommendations has been completed with five
submissions received.
Summary of Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
12
The status quo is that you do not accept the Committee’s recommendations and the
proposals do not proceed. The bag limits and other rules set under the Fisheries
(South-East Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986, and the Fisheries (South-East
Area Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986 would apply as they currently stand.
Option 2 – Committee’s Proposals
13
14
8
9
Option 2 is that you accept all, or some of, the Committee’s recommendations, which
are summarised as follows:
i)
Reduce the amateur maximum daily bag limit of paua from 10 to 5, and
kina from 50 to 10 within the Taiāpure;
ii)
Set an amateur maximum combined daily limit for 50 shellfish 8 within
the Taiāpure;
iii)
Reduce the amateur maximum combined finfish 9 daily bag limit from
30 to 10 within the southern part of the Taiāpure (refer map in
appendix 2);
iv)
Prohibit the commercial take of cockles outside of the ‘non-sanitation
areas’ within Waitati Inlet (refer map in Appendix 2);
v)
Temporarily prohibit the commercial and amateur harvest of paua from
the waters around Huriawa Peninsula for two years.
The Committee’s recommendations would be implemented under s 297 of the Act
through amendments to the Fisheries (South-East Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations
1986 (the Amateur Regulations) and Fisheries (South-East Area Commercial Fishing)
Regulations 1986 (the Commercial Regulations) as follows:
For the purpose of this regulation the definition of ‘shellfish’ includes rock lobster.
For the purpose of this regulation the definition of ‘finfish’ includes long and short finned eels.
40
a)
b)
Creation of new regulations in the Amateur Regulations:
i)
setting the daily bag limit for paua within the Taiāpure at 5;
ii)
setting the daily bag limit for kina within the Taiāpure at 10;
iii)
setting the maximum combined daily bag limit for shellfish (including
rock lobster) within the Taiāpure at 50;
iv)
setting the maximum combined finfish bag limit (including long- and
short-finned eels) in the southern part of the Taiāpure at 10; and
v)
prohibiting the taking of paua from the waters around the Huriawa
Peninsula for two years
Creation of new regulations in the Commercial Regulations:
i)
prohibiting the taking of cockles from the Taiāpure outside the ‘nonsanitation areas’ within Waitati Inlet; and
ii)
prohibiting the taking of paua from the waters around the Huriawa
Peninsula for two years.
15
As an alternative to a regulatory closure of the Huriawa Peninsula under s 297 of the
Fisheries Act 1996, a closure under s 186B was considered. However, s 185 is
specifically designed for taiapure purposes; and MFish considers it is preferable to use
this section (and s 297) to achieve the committee’s aims, rather than s 186B. The
Committee concurs with this assessment.
16
The Committee requests the measures be in place as soon as possible.
Rationale for Management Options
17
One of the objectives of the taiāpure provisions of the Act (Part IX) is to make better
provision for the recognition of rangatiratanga and of the right secured in relation to
fisheries by Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi. The general objectives for the
Taiāpure are the protection of fisheries, fish and habitat, the protection of sites
customarily important to local runanga, and to integrate and involve local resource
users in the management of their resources.
18
The Committee’s proposal outlines in detail the rationale for the regulations. The
Committee considers that action is required to address fishing pressure on shellfish
and finfish stocks within the Taiāpure and meet the objectives they have set for the
Taiāpure. The Committee believes it should be taking a leadership role by
encouraging sustainable harvest and protection of the marine environment within the
Taiāpure. The proposed regulations aim to increase key fisheries resources within the
Taiāpure and ‘future proof’ access to these resources by the wider community.
19
Proceeding with the recommendations (Option 2) furthers both the object of Part IX
of the Act, and the objectives for the Taiāpure.
20
MFish’s assessment of the Committee’s rationale for Option 2 is set out below.
21
The Committee believes that a maximum combined daily bag limit is necessary to
further mitigate increasing recreational fishing pressure on all species of shellfish and
41
finfish. Recreational fishing surveys of the region do not provide a time series at the
scale of the Taiāpure, which would allow the Committee’s claim of increasing
recreational fishing pressure to be assessed. However, the makeup of the Committee
ensures that members are well placed to assess changes in fishing pressure in their
local area.
22
Indicative results from surveys undertaken by the University of Otago 10 support the
Committee’s observation of reduced stocks of kina and paua, particularly in the more
accessible parts of the Taiāpure. The results indicate that less than one percent of
paua in this area are above the legal size limit of 125 mm. However, these surveys are
not yet completed, nor have they been reviewed by MFish.
23
A voluntary agreement that there will be no commercial trawling within the Taiāpure
is in place. This agreement appears to be largely effective 11 and should assist the
Committee’s objective of increasing fisheries resources within the Taiāpure. The
Committee is looking to ratify this agreement with commercial trawler fishers again in
the near future.
24
The recommended changes to finfish bag limits apply only in the southern part of the
Taiāpure; from Huriawa Peninsula-south. This is to ensure recreational fishers fishing
outside the Taiāpure area who transit through the Taiāpure into the wharf at Karitane
are not affected by the proposals.
25
To address concerns over the status of paua stocks in the waters around the Huriawa
Peninsula, the Committee believes a temporary prohibition on harvesting of paua is
necessary.
26
The University of Otago’s surveys have not yet been reviewed through MFish
processes. However, the large proportion of paua under the legal size limit and the
Committee’s observations suggest that fishers struggle to find legal-sized paua around
the peninsula but fishing pressure remains high. Under these circumstances, there is
potential for significant incidental mortality of paua through fishers removing and
measuring paua while trying to find legal-sized individuals.
27
The Committee has proposed that Huriawa Peninsula would be surveyed for at least
the next two years to determine if paua stocks are responding to the closure. This
work would be conducted by the University of Otago with the guidance and support
of the Committee. During the closure, growth rates of paua would also be
determined. The closure would support this work by ensuring tagged paua are not
removed.
28
The Committee would also be seeking to discuss future management of paua within
the Taiāpure, and an ‘opening strategy’ for the waters around Huriawa Peninsula, with
commercial and recreational fishers.
29
To address concerns over the status of cockle stocks in the Taiāpure, the Committee
believes a limit on the spatial extent of commercial harvesting of cockle is necessary.
A long-running time series of surveys suggests there are no sustainability concerns in
10
Under FRST Te Tiaki Mahinga Kai project
MFish (FIS) data, based on returns from commercial fishers
11 11
42
terms of cockles within the Taiāpure, however, they do indicate a shift in some beds
towards smaller size classes of cockle. Larger cockles are preferred by both
customary and recreational fishers.
30
MFish is unsure that limiting commercial cockle harvest to the commercial sanitation
areas and reducing recreational take of shellfish to 50 will necessarily lead to an
increase in the number of large cockles. It is probable that cockle size is not only
limited by harvest rates but also by environmental factors.
31
This proposal is supported by commercial cockle quota holders for the relevant QMA
(COC3).
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
32
The Committee has expressed concerns about the state of fish stocks in the Taiāpure.
These views are endorsed by the groups with representation on the Committee. The
status quo option means that these concerns are not addressed. Despite this, this
option could be preferred if it is determined the recommendations have an
unreasonable impact on the utilisation of fisheries resources within the Taiāpure.
Costs
33
This option could potentially undermine the purpose of the Taiāpure and appointment
of the Committee, and the Committee’s concerns about the current state of fish stocks
in the Taiāpure would not be addressed. The Committee’s observations suggest that
some fishery stocks, particularly paua and some other shellfish species, are declining
at current levels of harvest. Under these circumstances, stocks could decline to a
point where the community was unable to utilise key fisheries resources within the
Taiāpure.
Benefits
34
Under this option, the committee would need to rely on voluntary measures to address
their concerns. Some voluntary agreements are already in place within the Taiāpure,
including: no trawling within the Taiāpure; shellfish sanitation zone limits on
commercial cockle harvesting; and a voluntary closure for Huriawa Peninsula. The
effectiveness of some of these agreements is patchy (particularly the voluntary paua
closure for Huriawa Peninsula) and there is doubt over their longevity into the future.
Option 2 – Committee’s Proposals
Impact
35
Under this option the Committee’s concerns about the state of fish stocks in the
Taiāpure are addressed. However, implementation of the recommended regulations
would mean, in particular, recreational fishing practices within the Taiāpure would be
affected.
43
Costs
36
The proposals are expected to have no significant cost in terms of commercial fishing
for finfish within the Taiāpure. The recommended regulations do not relate to
commercial finfishing. The Committee is in discussion with commercial trawlers to
look at ratifying the existing voluntary agreement within the Taiāpure.
37
Similarly, the proposals are not expected to significantly affect commercial fishing for
paua. Although the southern side of Huriawa Peninsula is open to commercial paua
fishing, no paua has been commercially taken within the relevant statistical area
(which covers a much larger part of the Taiāpure ) since 2003, and, before that, only
small amounts have been reported (less than 0.15 t in total) 12.
38
Cockles are commercially harvested from within the Taiāpure area, but the proposal
to limit the spatial extent of harvesting to currently fished beds has the support of
cockle quota owners.
39
The main impact of the proposed regulations is on recreational fishing. The proposed
bag limits for shellfish and finfish would reduce the amount of fish and shellfish
recreational fishers would be able to take on a daily basis.
40
MFish considers the proposed new limits would particularly affect recreational fishers
targeting: finfish (the current combined bag limit would be reduced from 30 to 10);
paua (the current limit would be reduced from 10 to 5); kina (the current limit would
be reduced from 50 to 10); and cockles (the current limit would be effectively reduced
from 150 to 50).
41
Despite being consulted and being provided with the opportunity to submit on the
proposal, no submissions were received from the local recreational fishing groups.
The recreational fishing representative on the Committee supports the proposed
recommendations.
42
The Committee believes that Huriawa Peninsula has so few legal-sized paua that a
closure is unlikely to impact on fishers. On this basis, they argue the benefits of a
revitalised fishery on the Peninsula would far outweigh any negatives associated with
a closure.
43
Additional compliance costs would be incurred under Option 2. Specific recreational
bag limits for the Taiāpure would demand additional effort to educate recreational
fishers and enforce the reduced limits. Direct costs of up to $10K are anticipated for
new signage and amendments to brochures. The Committee has indicated it will take
a proactive approach to support education within the local community about the need
for the new rules. For example, the Committee is running a ‘Kids as Tangata Tiaki’
programme in association with local schools.
44
In spite of the proposal allowing transit through Karitane for people that fish for
finfish outside the Taiāpure and the possession restrictions proposed, certain
compliance risks would be created. These risks would be associated with individuals
fishing inside the Taiāpure and landing catch in excess of the reduced bag limits as if
it was taken outside the Taiāpure, particularly in the case of finfish. These risks stem
12
MFish (FIS) data, based on returns provided by paua fishers.
44
from the difficulties inherent to compliance with, and enforcement of, different bag
limits in small, adjacent, and not noticeably discrete areas, as would the case here.
These difficulties would increase compliance and enforcement costs and may
undermine the purpose of the changes proposed and the objectives they support.
Although the Committee took these risks into account when developing this proposal,
it deemed them to be acceptable at this time.
Benefits
45
Proceeding with these proposals furthers the object of Part IX of the Act, in particular
recognition of rangatiratanga.
46
This option addresses the Committee’s concerns about management of the fisheries
resources within the Taiāpure, and furthers the general objectives for the Taiāpure.
Other Management Measures
47
The Committee is pursuing voluntary measures to support the regulatory process. In
particular, the Committee is seeking to ratify an existing agreement with commercial
trawlers and will be seeking to discuss future management of paua within the
Taiāpure area with commercial paua fishers.
Consultation
48
MFish assisted the Committee to undertake consultation on their proposed
recommendations on your behalf. The proposal was notified in The Otago Daily
Times and the East Otago Review, placed on local notice boards sent to interested
parties and posted in full on MFish’s website. The Committee also took the proposal
to the groups they represented and received endorsement by them.
Submissions Received
49
50
Submissions regarding this proposal were received from:
•
Te Runanga o Otakou Inc (Tangata whenua) – expressed support for the proposal.
•
Fred Naish (Local resident / Fisher) – supports some aspects of the application, but
opposes the proposed bag limit restrictions.
•
Akaroa Taiāpure Management Committee – supports the progress that the Committee
has made with the proposal of a second set of regulations (the proposed regulations).
•
Geraldine Corkery (Local resident) – opposes the proposed reduction in the cockle
daily bag limit.
•
Jeremy Heenan (Local resident) – opposes the reduction in daily bag limits for
shellfish.
The submissions together with the Committee’s responses are discussed below. The
main concerns in the submissions where associated with the reduction in daily bag
limits:
45
Daily bag limit restrictions
51
Fred Naish agrees that stocks of some species are depleted within the Taiāpure area,
but would like to “see a more reasonable approach to some species.” Fred suggests
setting bag limits of 100 cockles and 10 blue cod per person. He believes that setting
limits too low will lead to high grading and an increase in illegal activity.
52
Geraldine Corkery opposes the proposed change in the shellfish recreational daily
catch limit between Warrington and Karitane, in particular the reduction to the cockle
daily bag limit. Geraldine believes that “the number of cockles taken from the bay
would be having a negligible effect on the bays cockle biomass” and is concerned that
a reduction in the cockle daily bag limit would not make it worthwhile to travel from
Dunedin to Blueskin Bay to gather cockles. Geraldine does not support the notion
that cockle numbers are threatened by recreational harvest.
53
Jeremy Heenan opposes the reduction in the daily bag limit for shellfish, and
believes that “there is currently no risk to their [shellfish] sustainable quantities let
alone demise.”
Committee’s response
54
The Committee has received and considered all submissions, and believes that the
proposed regulatory changes strike a balance between providing for current resource
use and protecting the local fisheries resource for future generations.
55
The Committee argues that the proposed bag limit reductions it is recommending are
enough for ‘an adequate feed’ and are appropriate considering the increasing fishing
pressure which has been noted in the area.
56
In response to the concern expressed that reducing the daily blue cod bag limit would
lead to ‘high grading’ of fish, the Committee believe that ‘best fishing practises’ will
prevail and prevent this from occurring.
57
Although the Committee acknowledges there is a lack of scientific information
available to assess the local stocks (except for the recent paua and kina surveys
conducted by the University of Otago), it notes that a taiāpure is a local fisheries tool
to empower customary rights and local knowledge. The Committee considers it has
based its recommendations on the best available information including local
knowledge.
58
The Committee has considered all submissions received and has decided not to make
any changes to its final recommendations.
59
The Committee is proposing an open day to involve the community and display that
the Taiāpure is for the benefit of all.
MFish comment
60
Section 10 of the Act requires fisheries management decisions to be based on the best
available information. It also states that the “absence of, or any uncertainty in, any
information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take any
measure to achieve the purpose of the Act.”
46
61
The best available information is included in this assessment of management options.
Where there are uncertainties in that information these are identified and discussed.
Those uncertainties make it difficult to accurately quantify the costs and benefits of
the proposed regulations.
62
MFish considers that the Committee has based its recommendations on the best
available information, including local knowledge of the fisheries resources of the
Taiāpure and information that is available. The lack of scientific information or
information on the amount of recreational harvest would not justify delaying
implementation of the proposed regulations.
63
One submission raised concern that reducing the daily bag limits will lead to high
grading and increased illegal activity. MFish agree that this could be a potential
problem and this would need to be monitored once the regulations had been
implemented. To mitigate any potential effects, an education programme would need
to be initiated to ensure the public was fully advised of the regulation changes within
the Taiāpure. As described earlier, the Committee is aware of the compliance risks
that would be created but it considers them to be not significant enough to change its
proposal.
64
MFish has considered all the views raised in submissions. MFish considers that the
benefits of the proposed regulatory changes outweigh the impact on recreational
fisher’s activities.
MFish Discussion
65
The submissions reflect a mixture of opposition and support for the proposals. MFish
considers that overall the submissions are not persuasive against the Committee’s
recommendations.
66
The Committee has considered the submissions and has not made any amendments to
its proposal. The final recommendation is endorsed by all stakeholder representatives
on the Committee.
67
MFish’s assessment is that the regulations recommended by the Committee “are for
the conservation and management of the fish, aquatic life, or seaweed in the taiāpurelocal fishery” 13. They are also consistent with the general purposes of the Act and the
more particular objects of Part 9 of making better provision for the recognition of
rangatiratanga and of the right secured in relation to fisheries by Article II of the
Treaty of Waitangi. On this basis, MFish recommends that you approve the
Committee’s recommendation.
68
The new provisions will be implemented by regulations made under s 297 of the Act
to amend the:
13
•
Fisheries (South-East Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986; and
•
Fisheries (South-East Area Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986.
Section 185(1) Fisheries Act 1996
47
69
Minor amendments will also be required to the Regulations in order to:
a)
Create offences; and
b)
Set appropriate penalties.
It is proposed that the penalties would be on the same scale as current penalties for
exceeding recreational bag limits.
70
MFish proposes that these amendments will take effect as soon as they can be
progressed through the regulation making processes.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
71
A Regulatory Impact Statement on this proposal has been reviewed by MFish.
48
Appendices
Appendix 1: Statutory Considerations
72
When considering these options, you are required to take into account relevant
statutory criteria contained in the Act, as follows:
a)
Section 5(b): You are required to act in a manner consistent with the provisions of
the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 (the Settlement Act).
The Preamble to the Settlement Act states that, “The Crown recognises that traditional
fisheries are of importance to Maori and that the Crown's Treaty duty is to develop
policies to help recognise use and management practices and provide protection for
and scope for exercise of rangatiratanga in respect of traditional fisheries.” The
Settlement Act is stated to be, inter alia, an Act “To make better provision for Maori
participation in the management and conservation of New Zealand's fisheries”.
MFish considers that the approval of the Committee’s recommendation is the option
which is most consistent with better providing for Maori participation in the
management and conservation of New Zealand’s fisheries, and therefore with the
Settlement Act. Due to the limited nature of commercial fishing in the area, the
proposed regulations do not negatively impact on commercial stakeholders. The
proposed regulations will reduce opportunities for non-commercial fishers.
Customary authorisations could still be issued.
b)
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. Part of the definition of utilisation is “conserving”, which means
providing for the maintenance or restoration of fisheries resources for their future use.
The proposed regulations are aimed at restoring and maintaining the fisheries
resources of the Taiāpure. The proposed regulations also seek to ensure sustainable
management practices in the use of the fisheries resources of the Taiāpure by reducing
non-commercial bag limits for shellfish and finfish, prohibiting the taking of paua
from Huriawa Peninsula, and closing non-fished parts of the Taiāpure to commercial
cockle harvest.
c)
Section 9(a) - (c): None of the management options proposed will negatively impact
associated and dependent species or the biological diversity of the aquatic
environment, or habitats of particular significance for fisheries management.
d)
Section 10: You are required to base your fisheries management decisions on the best
available information that, in the particular circumstances, is available without
incurring unreasonable cost, effort, or time. You should consider any uncertainty in
the information available and be cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or
inadequate. But, the “absence of, or any uncertainty in, any information should not be
used as a reason for postponing or failing to take any measure to achieve the purpose
of” the Act. The best available information has been incorporated into this assessment
of management options.
MFish considers that the Committee has based its
recommendations on the best available information, including local knowledge of the
fisheries resources. There are uncertainties in the information due to a lack of
scientific information, the fact that the amount of recreational take is unknown, and
fact that the costs and benefits of the proposed regulations cannot be quantified. You
49
can take into account anecdotal evidence and the views expressed in the submissions
as part of the available information.
e)
Section 174 sets out the object of sections 175 to 185 of the Act as, “…to make, in
relation to areas of New Zealand fisheries waters (being estuarine or littoral coastal
waters) that have customarily been of special significance to any iwi or hapu either—
(a)
As a source of food; or
(b)
For spiritual or cultural reasons,—
better provision for the recognition of rangatiratanga and of the right secured in
relation to fisheries by Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
f)
Section 185 empowers a management committee to recommend to the Ministry of
Fisheries the making of regulations for the conservation and management of the fish,
aquatic life, or seaweed in the taiāpure-local fishery.
g)
Section 186 (1) confers a broad power to make regulations. It provides that the
Governor General may make regulations providing for customary food gathering by
Maori.
h)
Section 186B allows the Chief Executive to temporarily close an area of South Island
fisheries waters in respect of any species or method for a period of up to two years if
satisfied it will assist in replenishing the stock, or in recognising use and management
of tangata whenua in the exercise of non-commercial fishing rights.
i)
Section 297(1)(a) prescribes the power to make regulations to regulate or control
fishing and the possession, processing, and disposal of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed.
It includes the power to prohibit the taking or possessing of fish from any area and the
power to regulate the number of fish that may be taken or possessed.
j)
Regulation 3A of the Fisheries (South-East Area Amateur Fishing) Regulations
1986 sets out the maximum daily number of finfish that may be taken or possessed by
an individual in any one day.
k)
Regulation 19 of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986 sets out the
maximum daily number of shellfish that may be taken or possessed by an individual
in any one day.
l)
Regulation 10 of the Fisheries (South-East Area Commercial Fishing) Regulation
1986 sets out restrictions on taking shellfish from parts of the Otago coast.
50
Appendix 2: East Otago Taiäpure – Local Fishery: Maps
51
52
53
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
MFish recommends that you approve the recommendation from the East Otago
Taiāpure Committee to:
73
i)
Reduce the amateur maximum daily bag limit of paua from 10 to 5, and
kina from 50 to 10 within the Taiāpure;
ii)
Set an amateur maximum combined daily limit for 50 shellfish 14 within
the Taiāpure;
iii)
Reduce the amateur maximum combined finfish 15 daily bag limit from
30 to 10 within the southern part of the Taiāpure (refer map in
Appendix 2);
iv)
Prohibit the commercial take of cockles outside of the ‘non-sanitation
areas’ within Waitati Inlet (refer map in appendix 2);
v)
Temporarily prohibit the commercial and amateur harvest of paua from
the waters around Huriawa Peninsula for two years.
Leigh Mitchell
for Chief Executive
Ministry of Fisheries
Hon Phil Heatley
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
/
14
15
/2010
For the purpose of this regulation the definition of ‘shellfish’ includes rock lobster.
For the purpose of this regulation the definition of ‘finfish’ includes long and short finned eels.
54