1. finance
2. investing
3. stocks

Review of Sustainability Measures and Other Management
Controls for 1 October 2007
Volume 1
Final Advice Paper
and
Summary of Recommendations
5 September 2007
2 of 397
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................5
STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS AND POLICY GUIDELINES............................................................................9
GENERIC ISSUES ...............................................................................................................................................33
ORANGE ROUGHY (ORH 1) – FINAL ADVICE .............................................................................................47
ORANGE ROUGHY (ORH 3B) – FINAL ADVICE...........................................................................................92
ORH 7B – FINAL ADVICE...............................................................................................................................128
HOKI – FINAL ADVICE ...................................................................................................................................161
OEO (OEO 1) – FINAL ADVICE ......................................................................................................................184
SQUID (SQU 1T) - FINAL ADVICE ................................................................................................................194
NORTH ISLAND EELS (SFE 20-23, LFE 20-23) - FINAL ADVICE..............................................................210
FLATFISH (FLA 3) – FINAL ADVICE ............................................................................................................253
RED COD (RCO 3) – FINAL ADVICE.............................................................................................................270
TARAKIHI (TAR 1) – FINAL ADVICE ...........................................................................................................293
SCHOOL SHARK (SCH 1) - FINAL ADVICE.................................................................................................321
DREDGE OYSTER (OYS 7C) – FINAL ADVICE ...........................................................................................344
WHITE WAREHOU (WWA 5B) – FINAL ADVICE .......................................................................................361
RUBYFISH (RBY 8) TECHNICAL TAC AND TACC ADJUSTMENT – FINAL ADVICE..........................373
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................376
3 of 397
4 of 397
INTRODUCTION
1
This paper provides you with the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) initial position and
final advice and recommendations on those sustainability measures and other
management controls reviewed for 1 October 2007.
2
This Final Advice Paper (FAP) is produced in four volumes:
Volume 1
Statutory Obligations and Policy Guidelines
Generic Issues
Fishstock Final Advice
Fishstock Summary of Recommendations
Volume 2
Fishstock Initial Position Papers
Fishstock Summary of Submissions
Volume 3
Fishstock Submissions
Volume 4
Deemed Values Final Advice
Deemed Values Summary of Recommendations
Deemed Values Initial Position Papers
Deemed Values Summary of Submissions
Deemed Values Submissions
Initial Position Papers
3
The initial position papers (IPP) were developed for consultation as required under the
Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act). They contained MFish’s initial position on the
fishstocks and deemed values identified for review. MFish emphasised that the views
and recommendations outlined the papers were preliminary and were being provided
as a basis for consultation with stakeholders.
5 of 397
Consultation
4
On or about 19 June 2007 MFish provided copies of the IPPs (contained in Volumes 2
and 3 and, in respect of Deemed Values, Volume 4) to iwi, stakeholders and you.
Stakeholders and iwi were asked to provide written submissions on the IPP by 27 July
2007.
5
A summary of the submissions received for each IPP, and the submissions
themselves, are included in Volumes 2, 3 and 4.
Final Advice Paper
6
This paper contains MFish’s final advice to you on the proposals for the 1 October
2007 sustainability round. The FAP includes a Statutory Obligations and Policy
Guidelines section that provides guidance on the interpretation of those sections of the
Fisheries Act 1996 and other relevant legislation that are most relevant to setting
sustainability measures. The FAP also includes a Generic Issues section prepared in
response to a number of common policy and management issues raised in submissions on
specific proposals. These sections should be read in conjunction with individual
proposals.
7
Each FAP section provides MFish discussion (including an analysis of your statutory
obligations in relation to each issue) and MFish’s preferred options.
8
A summary of recommendations for the FAPs is included at the end of Volume 1 and
Volume 4 (for Deemed Values).
9
A copy of this final advice paper will be made available to iwi and stakeholders who
made a submission on these proposals, following the announcement of your decisions.
Implementation of Decisions
10
Following your final decision on any changes to management controls for 1 October
2007, officials will provide you with a draft letter to stakeholders outlining your
decisions.
11
In addition, s 12(2) of the Act requires that after setting or varying any sustainability
measure, you are required to write to sector groups advising them of the reasons for
your final decisions.
6 of 397
Section One
Statutory Obligations and Policy Guidelines
and
Generic Issues
7 of 397
8 of 397
STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS AND POLICY GUIDELINES
1
The IPP provides sufficient information about the measures proposed by Government
so that stakeholders can provide informed and informative submissions.
2
The FAP provides you with the best information available to make a decision. It
describes the legal obligations, the available options, and the risks/consequences of
each possible course of action. In short, MFish provides full information and ensures
that the implications of actions are understood. Included in this analysis will be the
possible consequences of leaving all management measures unchanged (the status
quo).
3
This section provides guidance on the interpretation those sections of the Fisheries
Act 1996 that are most relevant to setting sustainability and allocation measures. This
will help interpret the information and advice provided in individual papers.
Purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996 (s 8)
4
The purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996 is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability. It is a statement of the overarching goal for
fisheries management against which all decisions under that Act must be measured.
The purpose statement guides the exercise of decision making powers pursuant to the
Act.
5
“Ensuring sustainability” as defined provides a guide on desirable yields from a
fishery. Fisheries resources are to be maintained with the potential to meet the
reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations. In addition, the purpose requires
that any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment should be avoided,
remedied, or mitigated.
6
“Utilisation” of fisheries resources is defined as conserving, using, enhancing, and
developing fisheries resources to enable people to provide for their social, economic,
and cultural wellbeing. There is a positive obligation to provide for the use of fisheries
resources. While the Act does not require the government to promote fishing or
maximise value, there is a positive obligation to provide a level and quality of access
to fisheries resources, thereby enabling people to provide for their social, economic
and cultural wellbeing from fishing. Section 8 refers to “enabling people to provide
for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing”. This implies decisions under the
Act should enable people to provide for their own wellbeing. Decisions should create
the opportunities.
7
The Select Committee in its final report to the House of Representatives on the
Fisheries Bill (as it then was) stated that the intention of the Bill was to “facilitate the
activity of fishing while having regard to the sustainability of harvests and mitigating
the effects of fishing on the environment”. In the Coromandel Scallops Fishermen’s
Association (Inc) v Minister of Fisheries case (Wellington CP 182/99, 13 September
1999) the High Court noted that “utilisation is subject to the overriding objective of
sustainability” (at page 22). In an earlier judgment, the High Court considered that
“when in doubt decision makers must favour conserving the fishing stock”, noting
9 of 397
that this was plain from the “international agreements” (see Roaring Forties Seafoods
Limited & Ors v Minister of Fisheries (High Court, Wellington CP 64/97, 1 May
1997) at page 9).
8
Since then the courts have given further consideration to how the purpose of the Act is
to be applied, and in particular the relationship between utilisation and sustainability.
In the Squid Fishery Management Co v Minister of Fisheries, 13 July 2004, CA39/04
litigation, the Court of Appeal noted that:
“The Minister…was required to balance utilisation objectives and conservation values. In the context
of a harvestable species, this requires utilisation to the extent that it is sustainable...”
9
More recently, in the kahawai litigation (NZRFC & Ors v Minister of Fisheries &
Ors, High Court Auckland, 21 March 2007), the High Court noted:
“…there is no hierarchy between the two objectives of providing for utilisation while ensuring
sustainability and that utilisation should be allowed to the extent that it is sustainable. I agree, though
… that on a plain reading of s 8 the bottom line is sustainability. That must be the Minister’s ultimate
objective. Without it, there will eventually be no utilisation.”
10
The purpose statement provides for one purpose that contains the elements of
providing for utilisation and ensuring the sustainability of fisheries resources. This
does not mean that one arm of the purpose is more important than the other is. Rather,
it means that the two arms operate in parallel, and not independently of each other.
Both elements need to be fully considered when acting under the Act. However, the
bottom line must always be sustainability.
11
In operation the range of management measures that may be applied to achieve the
purpose of the Act will produce a continuum of potential outcomes. This continuum
reflects the balance that must be struck between providing for utilisation whilst
ensuring sustainability. The continuum represents the range of options that must
ensure sustainability with varying degrees of risk. Each option within the continuum
also provides different levels of utilisation depending on the level of risk to
sustainability the decision maker considers acceptable. The decision on a particular
point on the continuum is in essence a decision on the appropriate balance between
sustainability risk and short-term utilisation on a case by case basis. However, the
overriding point is that sustainability must be ensured by each option. The explicit
reference in the definition of “utilisation” to social, economic, and cultural factors
indicates that all decisions made under the Act should consider these issues.
Future Generations
12
The Act, in its directive to provide for future generations, draws no direct distinction
between the next generation and some distant generation in time. No precise
determination is possible of where one generation begins and another generation ends.
The time scale involved may be dependent upon the interests that are to be taken into
account. Logically the time frame relevant to the reasonably foreseeable needs of
future generations may be as short as each generation of children or an indefinite time
in the future.
13
The needs of future generations however are to be considered in the context of the
purpose of the Act and the provisions of the Act as a whole. The obligation is not
10 of 397
open ended, it is what decision makers can reasonably identify as a need for a
particular generation. Future generation objectives are characterised by uncertainty —
what level of population will exist in the future; what future preferences will be; what
future requirements will be; what the impacts of our present actions will be; and, what
technological innovations will allow. But in cases of uncertainty the information
principles of the Act (s 10) are to be applied appropriately.
14
The objective of the Act is to sustain fisheries resources for future use, not to provide
for how future generations may desire to use such resources. Uncertainty is therefore
to be considered in the context of how current decisions impact on the ability to
provide for future use of the resource. Reference to “maintaining potential” to meet
needs suggests that the crucial requirement in respect of future generations is to
ensure the renewability of fisheries resources indefinitely at a quantity that provides
for continual utilisation. Hence, the aim of the Act can be seen in part as providing for
the extractive use of fisheries resources in the present, whilst maintaining the potential
of those fisheries resources to provide for future generations.
15
The maintenance of the general functioning of the aquatic environment is intended by
the Act only in respect of managing fishing activities. Whereas enhancement of the
aquatic environment, beyond that achieved through the avoidance, remedy, or
mitigation of adverse effects of fishing, is not. In terms of maintenance of the
productivity of natural resources, the Act requires that biomass of a fishstock be
maintained at a level that is at or above the level required to produce the Maximum
Sustainable Yield (MSY). MSY is the greatest yield that can be achieved over time
while maintaining the stock’s productive capacity. Therefore MSY caters for both
maintenance of reproductive potential and ongoing utilisation. For most harvested
stocks MSY is a practical means of providing for the reasonably foreseeable needs of
future generations. The Act provides some circumstances for departure from this
reference point in respect of stocks listed on the Third Schedule to the Act (s 14), and
stocks maintained at a level below MSY but above their long-term viability (ss 14A
and 14B).
16
The interests of future generations are described in s 8(2)(a) as relating to “fisheries
resources” which are defined as “fish, aquatic life, seaweed”. No express reference is
made to the inanimate elements of the aquatic ecosystem. It is considered implicit in
the legislation that a sustainable aquatic ecosystem is integral to, or a pre-requisite of,
the ability of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future
generations. However, in meeting reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations
the scope of the Act relates to managing the effects of fishing, not all impacts on the
aquatic environment.
Effects of Fishing
17
The obligation to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects of fishing pursuant to
s 8(2)(b) of the Act is the second element of ensuring sustainability. Consideration as
to what is adverse may be assessed on scientific knowledge about the environment,
but may also utilise traditional knowledge. It is also likely to be influenced by
stakeholder/community perceptions as to what is acceptable.
18
The requirement to “remedy” or “mitigate” suggests that such measures may be
implemented over a time frame relevant to the circumstances of the individual
11 of 397
decision and nature of the activity involved. Equally achievement of this objective
will contribute to maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to contribute to the
wellbeing of future generations.
19
The Act does not define an “adverse effect”; rather it defines the term “effect”. The
term “effect” has a very broad definition, including effects that are temporary or
permanent; past, present, or future; cumulative; any potential effect of high
probability; and any potential effect of low probability, which has a high potential
impact. No threshold is specified as to the magnitude of any adverse effect required
before any measure in response is to be adopted. Hence the measures adopted in
response should be commensurate with the nature and extent of the adverse effect.
There are a number of other variable factors that will influence whether an effect is
considered adverse: characteristics of the aquatic environment; impacts from the
removal of fish; the scale, intensity, and duration of effects; scarcity of environment
type at local, regional, national, international level; resilience of habitat; the effects of
activities other than fishing at a region level, the relationship of fishing effects to this;
human perception and values; and the level of information available on any of these.
20
The Act does not prescribe an order of priority between the obligations to avoid,
remedy or mitigate. The onus is on the decision maker to ensure that any adverse
effects can be avoided, remedied, or mitigated. The obligation to “avoid, remedy, or
mitigate” is not subject to any qualifier to the effect that such measures only need to
be undertaken to an agreed standard. The appropriate response must depend on the
circumstances of the case, and should be guided by the environmental principles (s 9)
and the information principles (s 10) in the Act.
21
Decision makers can weigh up all the environmental factors contributing to the effect,
along with the possible options available for avoidance; consider relevant social,
economic and cultural factors; take into account the environmental and information
principles of the Act; and opt for the most appropriate option of either avoid, remedy
or mitigate. In some instances, only one response may be effective. Accordingly,
completely irreversible effects are to be avoided. In other instances, it may be
appropriate to consider a range of options. MFish acknowledges that sustainability is
not a purpose to be traded off against utilisation through an analysis of the benefits
and costs. However, the Act allows a range of approaches for achieving sustainability,
and these may, and indeed should, be compared in terms of benefits and costs.
International Obligations
22
Section 5(a) of the Act provides that the Act shall be interpreted, and all persons
exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers under the Act shall act, in a
manner consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing.
Those acting pursuant to the Act must understand, and act in a manner consistent
with, the international obligations that the New Zealand Government has accepted. A
general principle to apply is that where there is a choice in interpretation of the Act or
the exercise of discretion, s 5(a) requires that the decision maker choose the option
that is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing.
12 of 397
23
It is MFish’s view that the provisions of the Act, and the proposed exercise of powers
under the legislation, are generally consistent with New Zealand’s existing
international obligations relating to fishing. 1
Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act Obligations
24
The Act shall be interpreted, and all persons exercising or performing functions,
duties, or powers under the Act, are required to act in a manner consistent with the
provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. This
also requires an interpretation that best furthers the agreements expressed in the Deed
of Settlement referred to in the Preamble to the Settlement Act.
25
The Settlement Act acknowledges that the Crown continues to be subject to the
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in respect of non-commercial Maori fishing
rights. The Settlement Act did not extinguish the duty to act in accordance with the
principles of the Treaty in respect of non-commercial Mäori fishing rights and
interests, and goes as far as specifically requiring this in relation to the obligations
under s 10 of the Settlement Act.
26
MFish acknowledges the following basic requirements apply to the Crown’s
obligation to act in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi:
27
a)
that the Crown acts reasonably and in good faith towards its Treaty partner;
b)
that the Crown makes informed decisions; and
c)
that the Crown avoids impediments to providing redress, and avoids creating
new grievances.
These principles put an onus on MFish to establish structures and work practices that
ensure it is capable of meeting its obligations to Mäori under fisheries legislation. In
New Zealand Mäori Council v Attorney General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 the Court of
Appeal concluded:
“the responsibility of one treaty partner to act in good faith fairly and reasonably towards the other
puts the onus on a partner, here the Crown, when acting within its sphere to make an informed
decision, that is a decision where it is sufficiently informed as to the relevant facts and law to be
able to say it has had proper regard to the impact of the principles of the Treaty.” (at page 683)
28
The principle of partnership and the requirement to act in good faith towards the other
Treaty partner extends an obligation on the Crown to also consider and act on any
proposals put forward by tangata whenua for the management of their customary
fisheries. The principle of avoiding the creation of new grievances is of particular
relevance in the fisheries environment now that a full and final settlement has been
achieved. Fisheries management decisions seldom impact on one sector group alone,
and the risk of such decisions adversely impacting on the secured rights and interests
of Mäori is a very real one.
1
However, MFish notes that the framework set out in section 10 of the Act does not make sufficiently clear the
need to give, on balance, a preference to sustainability under uncertainty, consistent with internationally
accepted interpretations of the precautionary approach. This issue is discussed in more detail in paras 56-59.
13 of 397
Environmental Principles (s 9)
29
The Act prescribes three environmental principles that you must take into account
when exercising powers in relation to utilising fisheries resources and ensuring
sustainability.
Principle 1: Associated or dependent species should be maintained
above a level that ensures their long-term viability.
30
The Act defines “associated and dependent species” as any non-harvested species
taken or otherwise affected by the taking of a harvested species. “Harvested species”
is defined as any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed that for the time being may be taken
with lawful authority.
31
The term “long-term viability” (in relation to a biomass level of a stock or species) is
defined in the Act as a low risk of collapse of the stock or species, and the stock or
species has the potential to recover to a higher biomass level. This principle therefore
requires the continuing existence of species by maintaining populations in a condition
that ensures a particular level of reproductive success. The long term viability will be
different for each species so necessitates a case-by-case analysis.
32
Long-term viability could be achieved at very low levels of population size,
depending on associated risks, such as recruitment failure at low population sizes.
Where fishing is affecting the viability of associated and dependent species, there is
an obligation to take appropriate measures, such as method restrictions, area closures,
and potentially adjustments to the total allowable catch (TAC) of the target stock.
Principle 2: Biological diversity of the aquatic environment should be
maintained.
33
34
“Biological diversity” means the variability among living organisms, including
diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems. The “aquatic
environment” is defined as:
a)
The natural and biological resource comprising any aquatic ecosystem; and
b)
Includes all aquatic life and the oceans, seas, coastal areas, inter-tidal areas,
estuaries, rivers, lakes, and other places where aquatic life exists.
When considering any decision under the Act, particularly sustainability measures, the
impact of current or future impacts on biodiversity must be taken into account. The
maintenance of biodiversity needs to be considered in the context of the purpose of
the Act, which is that, where possible, a resource should be used to the extent that
sustainability is not compromised. Determining the level of fishing or the impacts of
fishing that can occur requires an assessment of the risk that fishing might cause
biodiversity to be reduced to an unacceptable level.
Principle 3: Habitat of particular significance for fisheries management
should be protected.
35
Habitat is not defined in the Act, but MFish considers it to be “the place or type of
area in which an organism naturally occurs” (NZ Biodiversity Strategy). The
14 of 397
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (USA) defines
“essential fish habitat” as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding or growth to maturity”. The maintenance of healthy fishstocks
requires the mitigation of threats to fish habitat. However, fishing may not be the sole
source of the threat; a range of terrestrial activities may impact on fisheries habitats.
Habitats of special significance, such as those that assist in the reproductive and
productive process of a fishery, should be protected. Adverse effects on such areas
must be avoided, remedied, or mitigated.
Information Principles (s 10)
36
The nature of the data and assumptions used to generate fisheries assessments and the
results produced contain inherent variation and uncertainty. The Act specifies the
information principles that must be taken in account when making decisions in
relation to utilisation of fisheries resources or ensuring sustainability.
a)
Decisions should be based on the best available information. The Act defines
best information that, in the particular circumstances, is available without
unreasonable cost, effort, or time;
b)
Decision makers should consider any uncertainty in the information available
in any case;
c)
Decision makers should be cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable,
or inadequate; and.
d)
The absence of, or any uncertainty in, any information should not be used as a
reason for postponing or failing to take any measure to achieve the purpose of
the Act.
37
A person with decision making powers under the Act is required “to take into
account” the information principles set out in s 10. The information principles
provide guidance as to how decisions are to be legitimately made on the basis of the
information which is available.
38
The principle that decisions should be based on the best available information
,provides guidance that decision-makers (i.e. the Minister or MFish) should seek to
obtain the best information provided that, in the particular circumstances, is available
without unreasonable cost, effort, or time (as provided for in the definition of best
available information in section 2 of the Act). Where new and better information
comes to light during the decision-making process, that information should be
incorporated into, and update, the information basis for a proposed decision.
However, section 10 does recognise that decisions may need to be made where the
relevant information is inadequate or absent – refer section 10(d).
Determining uncertainty – scientific and anecdotal information
39
Information as defined in the Act includes scientific, customary Maori, social or
economic information and any analysis on any such information. The best available
information for any given decision will likely necessarily incorporate both scientific
and anecdotal (or quantitative and qualitative) information. As such both scientific
15 of 397
and anecdotal information should be considered and weighed accordingly when
making management decisions.
40
The weighting assigned to particular information is subject to the certainty, reliability,
and adequacy of that information. As a general principle, information on stock status
outlined in the MFish Fishery Assessment Plenary Report, when available, should be
given significant weighting. The information presented in the Report is subject to a
robust process of scientific peer review.
41
Anecdotal information on stock status typically should receive lesser weighting than
the Plenary Report. However, MFish believes that corroborated anecdotal information
has a useful role to play in the stock assessment process and in the management
process. Such processes should take account of all relevant inputs, and MFish believes
that anecdotal information may provide useful, supplementary information to that
contained in the Plenary Report, and should be taken into consideration where
appropriate.
42
Although all sector groups are invited to participate in the stock assessment process,
recreational, environmental and customary interests are often not represented due to a
lack of resources. Therefore, anecdotal information from these groups may not be
available at the time of the assessment to help interpret the quantitative modelling
results. In particular, there are often difficulties in obtaining scientific information on
the local availability of stocks in areas of importance to customary and recreational
fishers given that the Plenary Report often focuses on assessing the status of a stock at
the QMA level. Anecdotal information from customary and recreational sources may
be an especially useful source of information in these cases.
How to make decisions under uncertainty: Fisheries Act 1996
43
The current Fisheries Act 1996 makes clear that while decision makers should be
cautious where information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate, they should not
postpone decisions until they have full or completely certain information. The
information on which decisions must be based may be unreliable in itself; or it may be
insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the extent of a sustainability risk. More
commonly, it suffers both these weaknesses. In these circumstances decision makers
must balance competing risks: the risk of unnecessarily constraining utilisation on the
one hand, versus the risk of placing sustainability in jeopardy, on the other.
44
You are required to form your own view as to the relative weight that should be put
on the available information. You are also required to make your own assessment of
the point at which the provision for utilisation should be constrained in order to ensure
sustainability of the aquatic resources.
Proposed amendment to the Information Principles: Fisheries Act 1996
Amendment Bill
45
Internationally, the precautionary approach has been developed to provide guidance
on how to ensure utilisation is sustainable in situations of uncertainty. The
precautionary approach recognises that because information about sustainability risks
is generally more uncertain than information about the costs of constraining
utilisation, and because sustainability damage may be costly or require very lengthy
16 of 397
time periods to remedy, under uncertainty a degree of priority needs to be given to
ensuring sustainability.
46
MFish considers the information principles in the current Fisheries Act 1996 do not
make sufficiently clear the need to give, on balance, a preference to sustainability
under uncertainty, consistent with internationally accepted interpretations of the
precautionary approach. The Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill has been developed
to provide this guidance.
47
The Bill is presently being considered by the Primary Production Committee, which
has received and heard submissions on the Bill. The Committee is now due to report
back to Parliament in early November. At this point in time it is not certain when the
Bill will be enacted or what form the Bill will take.
48
As such, you must make your decisions on the measures proposed in this final advice
on the basis of section 10 as it is currently set out in the Act. MFish has prepared all
of its final advice in relation to the measures proposed on that basis. Accordingly,
where information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate, decision makers should be
cautious, but should not postpone or fail to take measures to achieve the purpose of
the Act.
Consultation (s 12)
49
When you consider implementing a sustainability measure under the Act, you are
required to consult with those classes of persons having an interest (including, but not
limited to, Maori, environmental, commercial and recreational interest) in the stock or
the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned.
50
The principles of consultation, as identified by the Court and now widely accepted,
are:
51
a)
Consultation is not to be equated with ‘negotiation’. ‘Consultation’ may occur
without those consulted agreeing with the outcome;
b)
Consultation is the statement of a proposal not yet fully decided on;
c)
Consultation includes listening to what others have to say and considering the
responses;
d)
The consultative process must be genuine and not a sham;
e)
Sufficient time for consultation must be allowed;
f)
The party obliged to consult must provide enough information to enable the
person consulted to be adequately informed so as to be able to make intelligent
and useful responses; and
g)
The party obliged to consult must keep an open mind and be ready to change
and even start afresh.
Statutory consultation occurs after policy options have been developed. The IPP
provides stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on the various options. The
FAP provides you with advice that includes the results of that consultation.
17 of 397
52
Section 12 also requires the Minister to provide for the input and participation of
tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in the stock concerned or an interest
in the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned. You must
also have regard to kaitiakitanga. This is a legal requirement, and reflects the
provisions of the Settlement Act, and the Crown’s commitment to its treaty partner.
Input and participation may include tangata whenua being involved in identifying
concerns and developing proposals as well as being involved in formulating possible
outcomes.
Sustainability Measures
53
The Act provides for the setting of sustainability measures. The Act defines as
“sustainability measures” those measures set under Part III of the Act for the purpose
of ensuring sustainability. There are a range of measures that can be adopted under
Part III, the most identifiable being a TAC for stocks in the Quota Management
System (QMS) and catch limits for non-QMS stocks.
Factors to be taken into account when setting sustainability measures
54
Prior to setting or varying a sustainability measure you are required to take a number
of factors into account. The purpose and principles of the Act (i.e. ss 8−10), together
with ss 5 and 12, are applicable to any decision you may make to set or vary a
sustainability measure.
Stock characteristics and management controls
55
Under s 11(1) you may set or vary any sustainability measure, including a Total
Allowable Catch (TAC), after taking into account the following factors:
a. Any effects of fishing on the stock and the aquatic environment;
b. Any existing controls that apply to the stock or area concerned;
c. The natural variability of the stock concerned.
56
In accordance with achieving the purpose of the Act, any adverse effects of fishing on
the aquatic environment should be avoided, remedied, or mitigated. As noted above in
the section on environmental obligations, where MFish is aware of issues related to
the effects of fishing associated with the stocks discussed, or issues are raised in
submissions, they are discussed in the sections relating to that stock.
57
In general, the assessment for a fishstock will take into account the variability of the
fishstock. Although the principal management mechanism for New Zealand’s
commercial fisheries is a catch limit, this is augmented by a number of other input
controls such as gear restrictions, minimum sizes and area closures. The assessment
and advice in the sections following take these existing controls into account.
Plans and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act
58
Under section 11(2) you must also have regard to relevant provisions of:
18 of 397
a. Any regional policy statement, regional plan, or proposed regional plan
under the Resource Management Act 1991;
b. Any management strategy or management plan under the Conservation
Act 1987 that apply to the coastal marine area and which you consider to
be relevant;
c. Sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (see below).
59
The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 amended s 11(2)(c) of the Act to require the
Minister, when setting or varying any sustainability measure relating to the Hauraki
Gulf, to have regard to any provisions of ss 7 and 8 of that Act. Section 13 of the
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act also requires decision-makers carrying out functions
for the Hauraki Gulf under the Fisheries Act to have particular regard to the
provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. Section 7 of the
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act recognises the national significance of the Hauraki
Gulf including its capacity to provide for the relationship of tangata whenua and the
social, economic, recreational, and cultural well-being of people and communities.
Section 8 sets out the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, which
include the maintenance of the Hauraki Gulf for the social and economic well-being
and its contribution to the recreation and enjoyment, of the people and communities of
the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand. Many of these objectives mirror the concepts
expressed in the purpose set out s 8 of the Fisheries Act, with perhaps a more explicit
emphasis on recreational well-being.
Fisheries plans and services
60
61
The Act (s 11(2A)) also requires that you take into account, before setting or varying
any sustainability measure:
a)
any conservation services or fisheries services;
b)
any relevant fisheries plan approved under this Part; and
c)
any decisions not to require conservation services or fisheries services.
Fisheries plans will specify a management framework for managing one or more
stocks or areas in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Act. Fisheries
plans allow for explicit trade-offs between services and catch levels to be achieved in
a transparent manner. There are no fisheries plans currently in place which require
specific consideration. In future as fisheries plans are developed, specific reference to
the implications for sustainability measures resulting from contents of the plan will be
made in each stock section.
General considerations
62
Consideration also needs to be given to how a sustainability measure is to be
implemented. In approving the use of a sustainability measure, you should consider
the most effective way of achieving the desired outcome. You may conclude that a
sustainability measure does not need to be formally set.
63
An important factor in supporting the use of non-statutory measures is the degree of
support for the measure and the nature of the monitoring and enforcement regime
19 of 397
proposed to support the measure. An example of a non-statutory measure is a catch
limit for a single species within a multi-species stock, such as oreo, or the use of a
catch spreading arrangement for orange roughy on the Chatham Rise. Non-statutory
measures may be supported by legally binding contractual arrangements entered into
by the fishers concerned. However, as the Crown is not formally a party to such
agreements, there is no formal sanction imposed under the Fisheries Act for a breach
of a sustainability measure implemented by non-statutory means. Any failure to
adhere to non-statutory measures may mean that the Crown would be increasingly
unlikely to rely on such measures subsequently.
64
Sustainability measures may also be set by regulatory means. The Act provides for the
use of a regulation, or Gazette notice where necessary, to implement a sustainability
measure. In the first instance, regulations are the preferred mechanism to implement
general sustainability measures. However, a Gazette notice may provide a more
timely and flexible response to particular situations than a regulatory response. For
example, a Gazette notice may be used where a non-statutory implementation of a
sustainability measure does not prove effective.
Other Management Controls
65
The primary sustainability measure for quota management stocks is the TAC. This
can be supported by a number of management controls that collectively ensure the
sustainability of the stock and provide for utilisation within accepted limits.
66
Section 11 provides for the setting of sustainability measures. A range of possible
supporting measures is specified in s 11(3), but the list of options is not limiting.
Sustainability measures may relate to size limits, biological state, fishing seasons,
methods restrictions and closed areas. For non–QMS stocks, measures can also
include general and commercial catch limits. The measures provided for under s 11
may be applied at a local level to address localised depletion or localised
sustainability problems.
67
The most appropriate sustainability measure to be set or varied will depend on the
precise nature of the issue being addressed.
Quota Management Stocks
68
The Act imposes a statutory requirement for you to set a TAC for each QMS stock
(s 13(1)). This requirement is modified by the condition that you are not required to
set an initial TAC for any fish stock unless it is proposed to also set or vary the TACC
for that stock under s 20 of the Act (s 13(10)). For those fishstocks for which no TAC
has been set, MFish’s policy has been to set TACs and allowances progressively over
time, as the need to review those specific fishstocks arises.
Setting a Total Allowable Catch
69
The Act contains a number of specific provisions to ensure a stock is managed
sustainably. A key measure is the setting of a TAC for a QMS stock.
70
Setting a TAC is essentially a sustainability measure. As such, social, economic and
cultural factors are not usually mandatory considerations when setting as TAC.
20 of 397
However, those factors are still permissible considerations where appropriate. For
example, those factors can be considered when, for example, setting a TAC above a
level that can produce MSY (see below).
71
The Act contains a number of different options (outlined below) for setting stock
target levels. All of the options are consistent with the purpose of “ensuring
sustainability”, but each option provides for a different management outcome.
Maximum Sustainable Yield (s 13)
72
In the case of quota management stocks, s 13 of the Act specifies a requirement to
maintain a fishstock at a target stock level being at, or above, a level that can produce
the MSY. MSY is defined, in relation to any fishstock, as being the greatest yield that
can be achieved over time while maintaining the stock’s productive capacity, having
regard to the population dynamics of the stock and any environmental factors that
influence the stock. A requirement to maintain stocks at a level that is capable of
producing the MSY is generally recognised internationally as being an appropriate
fishstock target, although there is some international support for MSY representing a
minimum fishstock target.
73
If a stock is currently at its target level (at or above a biomass that will support MSY),
s 13(2)(a) requires you to set a TAC that will maintain the stock at that target level,
having regard to the interdependence of stocks.
Rebuilding the stock towards target levels
74
If the stock is currently below a target stock level, there is a requirement pursuant to
s 13(2)(b) to set a TAC that will result in the stock being restored to a target stock
level (at or above a biomass that will support MSY) in a way and rate which has
regard to the interdependence of stocks and within a period appropriate to the stock,
having regard to its biological characteristics and any environmental conditions
affecting the stock.
Fishing down a stock toward target levels or maintaining above
75
If the stock is above a target stock level (above a biomass that will support MSY),
there is a requirement under s 13(2)(c) to set a TAC that will result in the stock
moving towards the target stock level having regard to the interdependence of stocks.
That target stock level may be at or above a biomass that will support MSY.
Way and the rate
76
In determining the way in which, and rate at which, a stock is altered to achieve the
target stock level, you are required to have regard to such social, cultural, and
economic factors considered relevant (s 13(3)). Section 13(3) makes it explicit that
those qualifying factors are relevant in the determination of the way and rate, rather
than in the determination of the target stock level. By “having regard” to the relevant
factors specified by the Act, you must consciously consider those matters and give
due weight to them. However, you have the discretion to reject or give such weight to
the matters, as considered appropriate.
21 of 397
77
It is also important to note that, when you are considering a significant reduction to
the TAC, the advice provided to you provides a careful cost/benefit analysis of a
reasonable range of (i.e. way and rate) options available to you in moving the fishery
towards MSY. This is so that, if the you decide on a TAC reduction having a major
economic impact, it is evident that all other reasonable possibilities have been
carefully analysed and why the TAC adopted was considered to be the preferable one
– see New Zealand Fishing Industry Association (Inc) and Ors v Minister of Fisheries
and Ors (CA82/97, 22/7/97)
78
The rate of rebuild to achieve BMSY (the biomass that will produce MSY), and
therefore the timeframe adopted to do so, is a matter for your discretion. In this
context, you could set a TAC that initially allowed a fish stock to decline away from a
level, which could produce the MSY, provided that TAC would rebuild the stock to
the target level over a reasonable period of time. There is no set time frame within
which you must achieve a rebuild or “fishing down” of a stock. You are given
discretion under the Act to determine the rate at which the TAC is reduced, subject to
consideration of the relevant circumstances on a case by case basis.
79
Such considerations may include the social impacts of the effect of decisions on
stakeholders. Non-extractive uses, social values and expectations, and political
imperatives may also constitute relevant considerations. Reference to cultural factors
in s 13(3) could encompass the interests of Mäori and their cultural practices and
values.
80
The interdependence of stocks (i.e., any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed or one or more
species that are treated as a unit for the purpose of fisheries management) is a
legitimate basis for determining whether a stock is managed at or above a level that
can produce the MSY, either temporarily, or on an ongoing basis.
The interdependence of stocks may include the relationships among and between
harvested species (i.e., any fish, aquatic life, or seaweed or one or more species that
are treated as a unit for the purpose of fisheries management). MFish interprets
interdependence of stocks as a situation where there is a direct trophic (i.e., one stock
is likely to be directly affected through a predator or prey relationship by the
abundance of another stock) or symbiotic relationship between stocks. This is
therefore distinct from the requirement to protect the viability of associated and
dependent species expressed in the environmental principles.
Management above BMSY
81
The Act allows the management of fisheries above the biomass that will produce
MSY on an ongoing basis. In the case of quota management stocks, s 13 of the Act
sets out the requirement to maintain or move fishstocks towards a target stock level,
being at, or above, a level that can produce the MSY, having regard to the
interdependence of stocks, biological characteristics of the stock, and any
environmental conditions affecting the stock.
82
There is scope for a stock to be managed at levels higher than that necessary to
produce MSY. Such a ‘target level’ may be an appropriate management strategy in
order to meet the wider social, cultural or economic goals provided for under s 8 (the
purpose) of the Act or due to the interdependence of a second species on the target
species. Stocks may also be managed above a level necessary to produce MSY where
22 of 397
there is a high degree of consensus amongst stakeholders. There may be an agreed
management strategy to improve catch rates or produce large fish.
83
MFish considers that management above BMSY is likely to be appropriate where there
is consensus amongst stakeholders to do so. However, there is no legal requirement
restricting you to make this choice where such consensus either exists or does not
exist.
Managing sub-stocks
84
Under section 13, you have a mandatory duty to set the TAC at a level that enables a
stock that is below BMSY to be restored to a level that can produce BMSY. In setting the
TAC, you must base your decision on BMSY for the stock as a whole (i.e. within the
QMA) and not the individual level of any substocks. For example, you should not set
the TAC at a level solely designed to bring a component substock to BMSY.
85
The management of localised depletion or localised sustainability problems poses
some challenges. Measures designed to ensure sustainability at a QMA level may not
be effective at providing desired levels of access to fisheries on a localised basis. A
determination is required as to which measures will best address the specific
sustainability issue confronted. The Act provides for a range of measures, both
regulatory and voluntary, that may be applied at the stock or local level to address
sustainability issues, including catch spreading arrangements; area specific catch
limits and bag limits; closed areas; controls on methods, size, and season; plus
allocative measures such as customary Mäori spatial tools.
86
Varying a TAC is primarily used to address stock-wide sustainability issues.
However, localised sustainability issues may affect the maintenance of the stock at or
above the level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, and therefore a TAC
adjustment may be appropriate. The size of the area and/or the number of areas
depleted is relevant to this consideration.
Other matters
87
The Act specifies that the TAC is the primary tool for moving a stock towards the
target stock level. Other measures may be adopted in conjunction with a change in the
TAC, however such additional measures should not be relied on in place of the TAC.
88
Under section 13(4), you may vary any TAC for any quota management stock by
increasing or reducing the TAC. When considering any such variation, you are to
have regard to the matters specified in ss13(2) and (3).
89
Any TAC that is set or varied has effect on and from the first day of the next fishing
year for the stock concerned. An exception applies to those stocks listed on the second
schedule to the Act (see heading below).
90
Section 13(5) of the Act specifies that a TAC of zero may be set. It may be in
situations where there are strong biological reasons for prohibiting all removals from a
stock in order to ensure sustainability. The setting of a zero TAC may be part of a
specified rebuild strategy to move the stock towards the target stock level. Prior to
23 of 397
setting a zero TAC you would need to have regard to the social, cultural and economic
costs and benefits associated with such a measure.
No specified target stock level (s 14)
91
You must set the TAC for a stock under s 13 based on MSY, unless the stock falls
within certain specific statutory exceptions provided for in the Act. Section 14
prescribes an exception to the target stock level based on an assessment of the MSY
for those stocks where:
a)
c)
It is not possible to estimate MSY because of the biological characteristics of
the species; or
A catch limit for New Zealand has been determined as part of an international
agreement; or
The stock is managed on a rotational or enhanced basis; or
d)
The stock comprises one or more highly migratory species.
b)
92
Stocks that meet the above criteria are listed on the Third Schedule to Act. For these
stocks, provided you are satisfied that the purpose of this Act would be better
achieved, you may set a TAC other than in accordance with the requirements stated in
s 13 (to maintain the biomass of a fishstock at or above a level that can produce the
maximum sustainable yield). However, the TAC must be set in a way that ensures use
of the stock is sustainable.
Above level of long term viability (s 14B)
93
A further exception to setting a TAC in accordance with MSY is the management of a
stock under s 14B of the Act. Under s 14B, a TAC is set at a level that allows a stock
to be managed below the level that can support MSY but at a level that ensures its
long-term viability. However, you must be satisfied that the purpose of the Act would
be better achieved by setting a TAC other than in accordance with s 13 (ie, at or above
MSY). Maintaining a stock above the level that ensures its long-term viability is
consistent with the purpose of the Act in relation to meeting the reasonably
foreseeable needs of future generations.
94
The purpose of s 14B is to enable other related stocks to be fully harvested. The stock
in question must be taken primarily as an incidental catch during the taking of one or
more other stocks and must constitute only a small proportion of the combined catch
taken. Section 14B addresses the difficulty of managing stocks within a mixed fishery
to the level that will support the MSY without forgoing some economic return. In
some mixed species fisheries the TACs of minor bycatch species may limit the ability
of fishers to catch their entitlement of the target species and could result in closure of
the target fisheries.
95
The determination of the alternative stock target level is required on a case-by-case
basis, subject to the requirement that the TAC must be set at a level no greater than
what is required to allow for the taking of another stock in accordance with its own
TAC and Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC). Quota owners are required to
take all reasonable steps to minimise the catch of the stock managed below the level
that will support the MSY.
24 of 397
96
The ability to set a TAC under s 14B is triggered by the submission of a proposal
from quota owners to the Minister of Fisheries. An Order in Council must be made
specifying the application of s 14B for the named stock. The Minister for the
Environment is required to concur with the proposal to set a TAC below BMSY but
above the level that ensures its long-term viability.
In-season TAC adjustment (Second Schedule Stocks)
97
Any TAC that is set or varied takes effect on the first day of the fishing year for the
stock concerned. For stocks that have highly variable abundance, an in-season TAC
increase may be possible during a year of high abundance. For this to occur, a stock
managed under s 13 must be listed on the Second Schedule to the Act; stocks listed on
the Third Schedule, and managed under s 14, are also available for an in-season
increase. The purpose of an in-season increase is to take advantage of the available
yield beyond the pre-determined target stock level.
98
An in-season TAC increase may be distributed between commercial, customary and
recreational fishers, and an allowance made for other sources of mortality to the stock.
The increase allocated to commercial fishers does not result in an increase to the
TACC during the next fishing year. At the start of the next fishing year the TAC
reverts to the level set at the start of the previous fishing year.
Allocation of the TAC
99
You are required to make allowances for different fishing interests under section 20
and 21 of the Act. This is a separate decision about allocation after setting the TAC. In
setting or varying the TACC under section 20, and thus establishing the commercial
share, you must allow for Mäori customary non-commercial fishing interests,
recreational interests, and all other mortality to that stock caused by fishing under
section 21; these will be discussed below.
Discretion to allocate TAC
100
On each occasion the allocation of the TAC for a stock is reconsidered, you have the
discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, how to allocate the TAC. There is
little statutory guidance on the apportionment of the TAC among sector groups, either
with respect to quantitative measure or prioritisation of allocation.
101
A conscious transfer of catch between sectors is a legitimate activity under the Act.
An allocation decision that adversely affects ITQ holders but which advantages –
deliberately or incidentally – non-commercial interests is not in itself outside, or
contrary to, the purpose of the Act.
102
The appropriate allocation is a matter for your assessment bearing in mind all relevant
considerations on each occasion you review a TAC. The allocation of the TAC can be
changed under various circumstances, not just in relation to a change in biomass. For
example, you are not precluded from giving extra allowance to meet a greater
recreational demand, subject to your obligation to weigh carefully all the competing
demands on the TAC before deciding how much should be allocated to each sector
group.
25 of 397
Customary allowance
103
The allowance made for customary fishing should satisfy customary interests, and
therefore the allowance should not constrain the level of customary catch taken. The
customary fishing regulations (Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing)
Regulations 1999 and the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998)
do not provide for the Crown to place limitations on customary fishing, except when
required to ensure the sustainability of a particular stock. Customary take is regulated
through the authorisation system in the customary regulations, which requires that all
customary fishing is to be undertaken in accordance with tikanga and the overall
sustainability of the fishery.
104
In most cases, there is little information on customary fishing, although this will
improve as customary regulations take effect and better reporting processes are
implemented.
105
In the meantime, setting appropriate customary allowances is difficult. MFish has
adopted a policy that bases the customary allowance on the recreational allowance,
such that:
•
The allowance is set at (and in some cases above) the recreational allowance
for species of importance to customary users;
•
The allowance is set at half the recreational allowance for species known to be
taken by customary fishers but are not of importance; and
•
No specific allowance is provided where there is no known customary catch of
a species.
106
By following this approach, it is unlikely that customary take would ever exceed the
allowance. Customary allowances may well be reduced if you are confident that
actual customary take will remain within the revised allowance.
107
In response to submissions on the 2006 IPPs, MFish agreed that it may be possible to
more accurately determine customary Maori interest in specific fisheries. MFish is
undertaking an examination on the way in which customary allocations are derived
and to produce guidelines on how this may be better achieved over the medium term.
This work is at a preliminary stage and no outputs are available to influence
customary allowances at this time.
Recreational allowance and the commercial allocation
108
Prior to setting the TACC, you must also allow for recreational interests in the stock –
an allowance must be made for recreational fishers where demand exists. However,
there is no requirement to provide for recreational demand in full, nor does the
recreational allowance take priority over the commercial allowance.
109
In terms of those considerations that you are to take into account, MFish notes that s 8
of the Act, in the context of utilisation of fisheries resources, refers explicitly to the
Act enabling people to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing.
110
Outlined below are descriptions of some of the relevant considerations that may be
taken into account when allocating a TAC. This is not an exhaustive list. MFish
26 of 397
considers that those factors which may be relevant to the exercise of your discretion,
in addition to the principles specified in s 5 (international law and Settlement Act
obligations), s 8 (purpose statement), s 9 (environmental principles), and s 10
(information principles) of the Act, include, but are not limited to:
111
a)
the characteristics and current status of stock;
b)
the existing allocations;
c)
current catch levels;
d)
previous decisions;
e)
equity of allocation – notion of “shared pain” when stock declines / “shared
benefit” when stock rebuilds;
f)
participation levels and importance of the resource, including customary
values;
g)
population trends;
h)
the extent to which people’s social, economic and cultural well-being will be
satisfied, both directly and indirectly;
i)
assessment of relative value of resource to respective sectors;
j)
current and past fishing practices (including overfishing, voluntary shelving or
closures by a stakeholder);
k)
investment and initiatives undertaken to develop or enhance the resource;
l)
impact on ability of sector to take allocation provided;
m)
customary fishing rights (as confirmed by the Settlement), recreational fishers
common law fishing rights, and commercial fishers property rights as quota
holders;
n)
economic impact of allocative decisions;
o)
social and cultural impact of decisions;
p)
recreational fishers’ common law right to fish, subject to statutory limitations;
and
q)
any loss of access to particular species.
Information about the current status of the stock relative to the statutory target level,
existing catch levels, existing allowances and catch levels, plus previous decisions
may be informative of the actions that need to be taken.
Proportional vs reallocative
112
Where the TAC is reduced, either TACCs and/or other allowances must also be
reduced. There is no statutory obligation to undertake a proportional reduction
between recreational and commercial interests.
113
The Act assigns no priority between commercial and recreational interests, except to
the extent that customary and recreational non-commercial interests must be provided
for to some degree where they exist. Within that framework, the Act permits the
27 of 397
preference of one sector to the disadvantage of another; for example to provide for
greater allowance for recreational interests in proportion to the commercial allocation.
114
Notwithstanding your discretion to allocate catch, case law also considers that it is not
unreasonable for commercial and recreational fishers to share some of the “pain” from
a reduction in the TAC. There is no requirement that the interests of recreational or
commercial fishers must be fully provided for.
115
MFish considers in situations where there is an absence of information about the
relative benefits to be derived from allocating a stock to one or other sector then it is
equitable for both commercial and recreational fishers to ensure the sustainability of
the stock through a reduction in the TACC and recreational allowance (along with the
implementation of commensurate to effect a reduction in catch – such as bag limit
reductions). Equally, commercial and recreational fishers should derive shared benefit
from the rebuild of a fishery in terms of the allocation provided to the respective
sectors, all other things being equal.
Monitoring allowances
116
If the TAC is reduced, you should take reasonable steps to monitor the customary and
recreational allowances so as to ensure that the level of harvest is within those
allowances. To fail to do so provides a risk that any reduction to those allowances,
and also the TAC, could be rendered futile.
Ability to take allocation
117
Consideration should also be given to the ability of a sector to take the allowance
provided. Impediments may exist that preclude the sector from exercising the full
extent of their entitlement. Tools are available in the Act that enhance the ability of
different sectors to exercise their right to fish. As well as implementing specific
measures in support of allocative decisions, caution should be taken to ensure that a
decision does result in a sector being precluded from being able to take the allowance
allocated.
Enhancement
118
Logically those parties who are responsible for the enhancement of a resource should
receive the benefit of the activity. However, the ability to ascertain the increased yield
from a fishery as a result of enhancement activities and hence the extent of the
allocation provided to the sector is problematic. The development of a fishery
resource involves demonstrating through research and/or monitoring that an increase
of catch from existing and new fisheries is sustainable. It is generally assumed that the
development will occur as a result of a structured deliberate initiative. It may be
possible for any one sector to develop a fishery. In such situations, it may be desirable
for the sector that undertakes the development of a fishery to be entitled to be
allocated the benefits of that development.
Population trends
119
Population trends are reflected in the level of recreational fishing undertaken, both on
a national and regional context. The growth of urban centres, in particular Auckland,
28 of 397
have a significant impact on particular fisheries. An allowance for the recreational
interest and the corresponding management controls for a stock could take into
account existing population distribution and growth. Hence where a greater
recreational demand arises you are not precluded by any proportional rule from
providing an increased allowance to the recreational entitlement subject to weighing
all competing demands on the TAC (see New Zealand Fishing Industry Association
(Inc) and Ors v Minister of Fisheries and Ors (CA82/97, 22/7/97) page 18).
Value
120
You are required to allocate the TAC in order to enable people to provide for their
social, economic and cultural wellbeing. An assessment of value is important to
determine the wellbeing that will flow from any allocation decision. Where one sector
values a resource more than other sectors, an allocation of the resource in favour of
that sector is likely have a greater positive effect on the well-being of the participants
in that sector, (than an alternative allocation approach).
121
Certain fisheries are considered to be of particular value or importance to fishers.
In considering the extent of the recreational and Mäori customary allowance it is
appropriate to consider the nature of the species and the importance of the species to
fishers. For example, the recreational sector may place a particularly high value on
some species of sports fish. The abundance of a species, and the availability of
particular size fish for a specific stakeholder group, may be factors relevant to your
decision.
122
MFish notes that it is difficult to quantify the relative value of a resource to each
sector. However, when considering value, a broad and inclusive concept of value is
appropriate. The value attributed to a resource is not limited solely to financial value
but a range of non-market, or qualitative, values.
Impact of overfishing
123
Overfishing of a TAC may result in the subsequent reduction of that TAC.
Reported overfishing by individual commercial fishers is subject to existing controls
under the Act. The consistent overfishing of the TACC or an allowance, which results
in the reduction of the TAC, as a general principle, ought to be attributed to the
stakeholder group responsible for the overfishing.
Undercatch of allowance
124
Stakeholders may elect to exercise their fishing rights in a manner, which results in
their allocation in a fishery being undercaught. Voluntary closures and shelving of
allocation may be undertaken as a means of improving the abundance of a species and
the availability of certain sized fish. Such methods may improve recruitment. In the
absence of explicit shares in a fishery, any subsequent increase in the TAC as a result
of such methods would be available to all stakeholders. Stakeholders are not immune
from any subsequent decrease in the TAC for sustainability purposes simply on the
basis of the previous undercatch of their allowance.
125
The Act does explicitly recognise underfishing rights of commercial fishers. In most
QMS species, where the person holding annual catch entitlement for a stock (not the
29 of 397
owner of the ITQ) undercatches the extent of their entitlement, the person may carry
forward the extent of the undercatch to the second fishing year up to a maximum of
10% of the total Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) they held in the first fishing year.
The carry forward of underfishing rights does not apply when the TACC is reduced in
the second fishing year (s 67A(2)(b)).
Analysis of impacts
126
A variation of the TACC and recreational and customary allowances may have
significant social, cultural, and economic implications for stakeholders and
consequential downstream economic activity. In New Zealand Fishing Industry
Association (Inc) and Ors v Minister of Fisheries and Ors (CA82/97, 22/7/97), the
Court of Appeal noted that where a decision with major economic impact is
considered necessary the rationale for that decision should be clearly transparent.
Those affected ought to be able to establish that all other reasonable possibilities were
analysed and that the decision adopted was the preferable option.
127
In reducing a TACC, you should carefully weigh the economic impact of any such
action on individual quota owners, those fishers dependent on obtaining annual catch
entitlement, and on the QMS generally. However, the reduction of the TACC is not
rendered unlawful simply on the basis that the decision adversely impacts the property
right inherent in the QMS. In the context of fisheries legislation, a property right
constitutes a right to harvest, which is subject to the Minister’s statutory powers.
Accordingly, MFish considers that financial security of a property right is a valid but
not irrefutable consideration in the context of your TAC/allocative decisions.
128
The actual financial costs associated with allocative decisions are to be assessed
according to the nature of the fishery. Downstream impacts may result as a
consequence of allocative decisions made in respect of both recreational and
commercial stakeholders. In addition to the commercial harvesting and processing
sector a significant number of service industries are linked to the fishing industry,
including charter operators, sale of fishing gear, repair, and transport related services.
Decisions may also impact on particular communities where the fishing and fishing
related services provide a significant contribution to a local economy.
129
A cost benefit analysis is designed to act as a tool for deriving the most efficient and
productive solution. In itself such an analysis is not intended to impose a barrier to
implementing measures considered necessary for fisheries management purposes.
In many instances MFish does not have access to the information necessary for a
detailed cost benefit analysis to be undertaken. Invariably it is the stakeholders
concerned who hold the relevant information. MFish endeavours to identify the
relevant costs and benefits of any allocation option, to the extent possible with the
available information including that provided by submissions, where there is likely to
be a significant impact for a proposed decision
All other fishing-related mortality
130
An allowance can be made for any mortality to a stock that results from fishing. This
includes illegal catch, discards, and incidental mortality from fishing gear. Often, little
quantitative information is available to assess the level of fishing-related mortality,
30 of 397
although inferences can be drawn from the impact associated with a particular
method, or information from similar stocks or species.
131
Where quantitative estimates of other sources of fishing-related mortality are
available, this is used as the basis for determining the allowance. If no estimates are
available, but other sources of mortality are known to occur based on information
from similar stocks or methods, then MFish generally recommends a nominal
allowance. If there is no known mortality, then no allowance is made.
132
Where it is possible to determine the fishing-related mortality caused by a sector
group (for example the incidental mortality related to a specific type of fishing gear
used by a particular sector), then the fishing-related mortality attributable to that
sector should be deducted from the allowance for that sector. Where this is not
possible an estimate of other sources of fishing related mortality should be deducted
from the TAC.
31 of 397
32 of 397
GENERIC ISSUES
1
A number of policy and management issues were raised in submissions that are of a
general nature, although many of the issues flow through into the individual
sustainability advice papers:
a)
Section 10 and the precautionary approach
b)
Environmental impacts of fisheries
c)
Objectives-based fisheries management
d)
Use of anecdotal information and monitoring of recreational catch
e)
Factors to consider when setting a TAC
f)
Management above BMSY;
g)
Managing sub-stocks
h)
Proportional v re-allocation
i)
Adverse effect
j)
Shelving of ACE
Section 10 and the precautionary approach
2
Forest and Bird submitted that the management options outlined in the IPP do not
adequately factor in the precautionary approach to fisheries management. Forest and
Bird suggests that in many stock reviews, the appropriate precautionary option is not
even presented.
3
Similarly, ECO submitted that under section 5 of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act), the
Minister should act in a manner that is consistent with international obligations to take
a precautionary approach.
4
In contrast, SeaFIC strongly disagrees that the Act requires amendment in order to
reflect more clearly the internationally recognised precautionary approach. Further,
SeaFIC does not consider it appropriate for MFish to seek submitters’ views on the
options in the IPP if section 10 of the Act was amended. Sanford and SeaFIC both
stress that consultation on the IPP should occur under the law as it currently stands.
MFish response
5
As noted in the IPPs, MFish acknowledges that section 10 as it is currently set out in
the Act must be applied to the sustainability decisions outlined in this final advice.
Further, MFish notes that consultation on the different options proposed in each IPP
has occurred in light of section 10 as it is currently set out in the Act. The fact an
amendment to section 10 is being considered by Parliament at the moment is not a
relevant consideration in your decisions on this sustainability round.
33 of 397
6
Submissions generally reflected two different interpretations of precaution: the
exercise of caution in decision-making when faced with uncertainty and/or unreliable
information; and, the interpretation of precaution as favouring sustainability when
information is uncertain.
7
Submissions from Forest and Bird and ECO correctly note that s 5 of the Act
discusses the requirement to act in a way consistent with international obligations.
Such international obligations cannot however be interpreted as overriding specific
provisions contained in the Act. MFish interprets s 5 to mean that where there is a
choice in the interpretation of the Act, or the exercise of discretion, the decision maker
must choose the option that is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations
relating to fishing.
8
The information principles in s 10 of the Act expressly state that the decision should
be cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate.
Fisheries management is decision making in an information-deficient situation. The
Act does not prevent action in the absence of information or complete information;
rather measures should still be taken to give effect to the purpose of the Act.
9
MFish accepts that the generally accepted international meaning of the ‘precautionary
approach’, which is geared towards cautious management to minimise environmental
or sustainability risk, is different from the section 10 direction that decision makers
should be cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. In these
circumstances decision makers must balance competing risks: the risk of
unnecessarily constraining utilisation on the one hand, versus the risk of placing
sustainability in jeopardy, on the other. In the absence of an amendment to the Act
such as the amendment currently being proposed by the Fisheries Act 1996
Amendment Bill (i.e. to ensure particular care is given to ensuring sustainability
where information is absent, uncertain, unreliable or inadequate), MFish considers
decision makers must apply the existing framework of section 10, and in particular
section 10 (c) and (d). As noted above, you must make these decisions within the
existing statutory framework.
Environmental impacts of fisheries
10
Forest and Bird submitted that MFish has a responsibility to not only give an
assessment of the socio-economic impacts of the different management options, but
also an assessment of the environmental impacts of each option. By way of example
they note by-catch of dolphins in flatfish fisheries, bycatch of corals and bryozoans on
trawl fisheries and seabird and mammal bycatch in the squid and hoki fisheries.
11
Similarly, ECO submits that MFish needs to consider how environmental effects are
better integrated with single stock considerations and that environmental
considerations tend to be an after-thought. ECO also considers that obligations to
protect and preserve the marine environment under Article 192 of UNCLOS and to
take an ecosystem-based approach to resource management are relevant to decisions
because of section 5 of the Act.
34 of 397
MFish response
12
MFish emphasise that under the Act, the Minister must consider environmental
factors when making decisions under the Act. The Minister has a general
responsibility, described in the purpose of the Act, to avoid, remedy or mitigate any
adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment. In addition, the Minister must
take into account the environmental principles that relate to associated and dependent
species, biodiversity and habitats of significance to fisheries management. These
considerations are elaborated on in the relevant sections of individual advice papers.
13
Environmental considerations such as the adverse effects of fishing and maintenance
of biodiversity are broad issues facing all fisheries. As such they are often more
appropriately and effectively addressed at a national level than through the
consideration of catch levels for a single stock. MFish is currently working on such
issues through implementation of the Government’s Marine Protected Areas Policy,
and through the development of the Seabird Standard and the Benthic Impacts
Strategy.
Objectives-based fisheries management
14
The New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council (NZBGFC) submitted that MFish has
been promoting objectives-based fisheries management, Fisheries Plans and Fisheries
Standards, however, NZBGFC fails to see where the current proposals fit with this
work. As such, decisions on inshore stocks, such as school shark, are premature as
Fisheries Plans are due to be launched later this year.
15
SeaFIC raised similar concerns. SeaFIC stressed the importance of viewing the IPP
management options and decisions in the context of longer term management
objectives for the fisheries under review. SeaFIC accepts that the Minister has an
obligation to ensure that the purpose of the Act is being met for a stock regardless of
whether long-term management objectives and strategies have been agreed for that
fishery (e.g., through a Fisheries Plan). Nevertheless, SeaFIC suggests that single-year
management settings made as a result of the annual sustainability measures process
should ideally be considered in light of the likely future management of that fishery.
MFish response
16
MFish takes this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to Fisheries Plans and
Standards. MFish’s SOI clearly expounds the benefits of this approach and
considerable MFish resources have been aligned to this process. MFish also
acknowledge that a key component of the successful implementation of the Fisheries
Plan model is the involvement and collaboration of stakeholders in determining
strategies for fisheries which derive best value.
17
However, as SeaFIC points out, the existence of a Fisheries Plan does not absolve the
Minister of his obligations under the Act. You are still obliged make decisions which
are consistent with the purpose of the Act.
18
MFish does not consider that the current sustainability round undermines the value of
Fisheries Plans. The strength of the Fisheries Plan approach is that it provides a
greater opportunity for stakeholder input into the management of fisheries. Greater
35 of 397
stakeholder involvement in management decisions and setting decision rules will
provide them with certainty and transparency around when action must be taken and
what that action will be. This will provide a foundation for better decisions to be made
by stakeholders on the future of their fishing operations.
Use of Anecdotal Information and Monitoring of Recreational
Catch
19
Sanford expressed strong reservations about the use of anecdotal information where
limited scientific information is available. Sanford was critical of MFish’s failure to
gather accurate information on recreational and customary catch that, in their view,
leads to the reliance on anecdote. Sanford submitted that such anecdotal information
is notoriously unreliable and even if appropriately weighted has only limited
usefulness.
20
Sanford emphasises that to ensure sustainable shared fisheries, accurate and robust
information on recreational and customary catch is vital.
21
Sanford and SeaFIC also express concern over the extent to which recreational catch
is monitored. They contend that the lack of recreational reporting means there is no
way of knowing whether a recreational allowance is being over-fished. As such,
monitoring of recreational catch is essential.
MFish response
Anecdotal Information
22
MFish considers all information in the context of management decisions.
The weighting assigned to particular information is subject to the certainty, reliability,
and adequacy of that information. MFish accepts that as a general principle,
information on stock status outlined in the MFish Fishery Assessment Plenary Report
should be given significant weighting. The information presented in the report is
subject to a robust process of scientific peer review. In contrast, anecdotal information
on stock status typically should receive lesser weighting than the Plenary Report.
23
MFish believes that corroborated anecdotal information has a useful role to play both
in the stock assessment and management processes. Anecdotal information may be
used to assist in "ground truthing" stock assessment modelling results, and is reported
in the Plenary when available. Although all sector groups are invited to participate in
the stock assessment process, recreational, environmental and customary interests are
often not represented due to a lack of resources. Therefore, anecdotal information
from these groups may not be available at the time of the assessment to help interpret
the quantitative modelling results. The management process takes account of all
relevant inputs, and MFish believes that the anecdotal information in question
provides useful, supplementary information to that contained in the Plenary and
should be taken into consideration. In particular, anecdotal information on local
availability of the stock in areas of importance to customary and recreational fishers
may be especially useful.
36 of 397
24
It is quite plausible for the stock assessment information contained in the Plenary
Report on a stock-wide basis not to reflect local variations in catch rates of each
fishing sector. Consideration of anecdotal information can provide a useful additional
snap-shot of the fishery.
Monitoring of Recreational Catch
25
In the majority of fisheries, recreational take represents a small portion of the total
catch. More importantly, a regulatory framework to manage recreational fishing is in
place, albeit not as comprehensive or as detailed as with the commercial fishery.
26
Monitoring of recreational take also constitutes a considerable portion of available
compliance resources. Fisheries officers routinely check to ensure recreational and
customary fishers are operating within the bounds of the regulatory framework.
Considerable effort is allocated to popular recreational areas during the summer
months. Infringement notices have been added to the penalty provisions of the Act
and are designed to deal with low level offending. In addition, the work of Honorary
Fisheries Officers is targeted principally at monitoring recreational fishers.
27
MFish accepts that there is a degree of imprecision about the estimates of recreational
catch. However, MFish considers that the best available information is taken into
account. Estimates of marine recreational harvest have been determined by a number
of research projects.
Factors to consider when setting a TAC
28
SeaFIC disagrees that social, economic and cultural factors are not usually mandatory
considerations when setting a TAC. SeaFIC suggests that social, cultural and
economic considerations are mandatory relevant considerations when considering the
way and rate at which a stock moves towards BMSY (s13(3)) and therefore social,
cultural and economic considerations must be relevant to the setting of a TAC.
MFish response
29
MFish acknowledges that when setting the TAC pursuant to s13(2)(b) and (c) i.e.
rebuilding or fishing down a stock to at or above BMSY, social, economic and cultural
factors are mandatory considerations in assessing the way and rate the stock is moved.
Apart from that express requirement in section 13(3), social, economic and cultural
factors are not mandatory considerations when setting as TAC.
30
Nevertheless, given the purpose of Act provides for utilisation to include enabling
people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing, MFish considers
those factors are still permissible considerations when setting the TAC. MFish’s
assessment of these factors is incorporated into each advice paper.
Management above BMSY
31
Sanford submitted that it does not support managing fisheries above BMSY other than
where there are agreed benefits from doing so.
37 of 397
32
Similarly, SeaFIC submitted that setting stock management targets above BMSY may
be appropriate where there is consensus amongst stakeholders. However, SeaFIC does
not accept that a target level above BMSY may be an appropriate management strategy
in order to meet the wider social, cultural or economic goals provided for under s 8
(the purpose) of the Act. If government sets stock targets above BMSY without the
support of rights holders it is inappropriately making assumptions about the relative
value of the stock to the various fishing sectors and is therefore applying the
management target as an allocation tool rather than a sustainability measure.
33
In contrast, NZBGFC and ECO both support managing fisheries above BMSY. ECO
supports this position to ensure greater stock sizes as a precautionary measure to
ensure the effects of trawl fishing on the marine environment are avoided, remedied or
mitigated. The NZBGFC supports higher biomass for shared fisheries to ensure
greater probability of catching fish and the increased likelihood of catching fish of
greater size.
MFish response
34
In the case of quota management stocks, s 13 of the Act requires the Minister to set a
TAC to maintain, a stock at, or move a stock towards, a target stock level being at, or
above, a level that can produce the the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). This
requirement reflects Article 61(3) of UNCLOS.
35
The plain and ordinary meaning of s 13 makes it clear that the Minister has a
discretion to set a TAC that maintains the stock “at or above” a level that can produce
MSY. Outside of the specific context of sustainability concerns relating to the
interdependence of stocks, there is little guidance in s 13 as to the exercise of the
Minister’s discretion to set a target level above BMSY. Although explicit reference is
made in s 13 of the Act to interdependence of stocks, MFish does not consider this
reference constrains the ability of the Minister to manage a stock above BMSY only
where the interdependence of stocks arises.
36
It is clear that the Minister’s discretion must be exercised in accordance with the
purpose of the Act in s 8 and be based on the best available information.
Therefore, s 13 also needs to be interpreted in the context of the purpose and intention
of the Act itself.
37
In particular, the purpose of the Act refers to enabling people to provide for their
social, economic, and cultural well-being. While a TAC is primarily a sustainability
measure, it also is a measure that determines the level of utilisation of the resource
that is provided. Managing above BMSY in many situations may enable people to
better provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being. For example,
benefits could include improved catch rates for all sectors, easier access to the
resource in different locations, and a greater size range of fish, including larger fish.
There is probably little debate about these benefits, rather the contention surrounds the
circumstances in which management above BMSY should occur for utilisation purposes
(i.e. how to maximise the value from the fishery).
38
Management above BMSY will also provide sustainability benefits. A greater
proportion of the biomass will be left in the water. This will result in a greater
abundance of fish and larger, more productive fish. Managing above BMSY also
38 of 397
provides an increased buffer against overfishing a stock. There is a growing body of
opinion in the fisheries science community that managing above BMSY should be the
default starting point. In many instances there is a lack of information to determine
with sufficient degree of confidence to monitor the status of the stock relative to BMSY
or to determine what constitutes BMSY for the stock, let alone be fully cognisant of the
ecosystem effects of fishing the stock in question.
39
MFish contends that the option to manage above BMSY can be used to provide benefits
to the sector that values that resource the most. Section 13 of the Act simply refers to
management of the stock at or above/to or above/moving towards or above a level that
can produce the maximum sustainable yield.
40
While MFish considers that management at BMSY or above BMSY are both viable
options under section 13 of the Act, we consider that management above BMSY is most
likely to be appropriate where there is consensus amongst stakeholders to do so. There
is however, no legal requirement restricting the Minister to make this choice where no
such consensus exists.
41
In some instances managing at BMSY may not optimise social, economic, and cultural
well-being. Managing at BMSY may result in less than the maximum net social benefit
from the use of the resource (i.e. in some instances disadvantage non-commercial
users of the resource). Managing at BMSY inevitably results in a greater reduction of
the total biomass of the stock than managing above BMSY.
42
Ultimately such decisions are yours to make as Minister of Fisheries based on the
specific factors faced in each particular fishery. Each advice paper provides MFish’s
best assessment of the lawful options available to you.
Managing Sub-Stocks
43
Sanford and others submitted that localised depletion or localised sustainability
concerns are problematic. Sanford maintain that it is imperative to the success of the
QMS that stocks are managed at the Quota Management Area (QMA) level and that
any sub-stock management consider carefully the likely impacts on the QMS.
MFish response
44
Under sections 13, 14 and 14B of the Act, the Minister may set or vary a TAC in
respect of each quota management stock. QMAs are defined at the point of
introduction of a stock to the QMS. In many cases the management areas reflect
considerations relating to administrative efficiency rather than detailed knowledge of
the biological distributions of individual stocks of any one species. The standard
management areas are considered the most cost effective unit in terms of overall costs
of management and enforcement capabilities.
45
The establishment of QMAs and TACs do not remove the need to consider other
spatial scales for particular management interventions depending on the biology of the
species and the needs of differing fishers. For sedentary species it may be difficult to
manage on a large scale without interventions in addition to the TAC. In areas where
both recreational and commercial fishing is important, there will be differing
39 of 397
requirements in terms of the desirable size of the area managed or the types of
management tools that are employed.
46
Typically, a distinction is made between ensuring sustainability at a QMA or stock
level and local sustainability issues (commonly referred to as localised depletion).
However, in both cases, the lack of availability of the species at the QMA level and
discrete areas within the QMA are issues relating to sustainability of the species.
The intensity of fishing pressure and the biological characteristics and distribution of
the species can lead to localised depletion. That may be a sustainability issue.
The presence of localised depletion in a number of areas within the QMA may be a
sustainability issue. The serial depletion of areas – the sequential fishing out of the
stock area by area may also be sustainability issue.
47
The management of localised depletion or localised sustainability problems poses
some challenges. Measures designed to ensure sustainability at a QMA level may not
be effective at providing desired levels of access to fisheries on a localised basis.
A determination is required as to which measures will best address the specific
sustainability issue confronted. Section 11 of the Act provides for a range of measures
that may be applied at the stock or local level to address sustainability issues.
48
Varying a TAC is primarily used to address stock-wide sustainability issues.
However, localised sustainability issues may affect the maintenance of the stock at or
above the level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, or affect the
sustainability of the QMA stock more generally under s14, and therefore a TAC
adjustment may be appropriate. When considering a change in TAC, the Minister
must have regard to the stock as a whole (i.e. at the QMA level). Where issues of
localised depletion have been identified, but these issues do not translate to a
sustainability concern for the stock as a whole, then it is inappropriate to use a TAC
reduction to address them.
49
MFish notes there is also legislative provision (sections 25 onwards) for sub-dividing
QMAs which may be an appropriate tool also to address sub-stock management
issues.
Proportional v re-allocation
50
Sanford strongly advocated for proportionally managed fisheries. Sanford believes
this creates the correct incentives for all sectors to take responsibility for their actions
and to share equitably the gains and burden when TACs are adjusted. Sanford
submitted that reallocation between sectors should only occur after the costs and
benefits have all been comprehensively and fully justified.
51
SeaFIC expressed support for MFish’s previous policy preference for proportional
allocation stating that is was consistent with the purpose of the Act and essential for
maintaining the integrity of the QMS.
52
However, SeaFIC was concerned that the current IPP sets out a preference for
proportional allocation only “where there is an absence of information about the
relative benefits to be derived from allocating a stock to one or other sector.” SeaFIC
suggested that this implies the preferred allocation policy is now a “value based”
40 of 397
approach to reallocation based on estimates of benefits to each sector, rather than a
proportional approach. Because Cabinet has yet to make decisions on the Shared
Fisheries proposals, SeaFIC recommends that until a new policy is agreed the current
approach (i.e. proportional allocation) should continue to apply.
MFish response
53
The Minister, on each occasion he reconsiders allocation of the TAC for that stock,
has the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, how to allocate the TAC.
There is little statutory guidance on the apportionment of the TAC among sector
groups, either with respect to quantitative measure or prioritisation of allocation.
54
The appropriate allocation is a matter for the Minister’s assessment bearing in mind
all relevant considerations on each occasion he revisits the issue. The allocation of the
TAC can be changed under various circumstances, not just in relation to a change in
biomass. For example, the Minister is not precluded from giving extra allowance to
meet a greater recreational demand, subject to his obligation to weigh carefully all the
competing demands on the TAC before deciding how much should be allocated to
each sector group.
55
The Act assigns no priority between commercial and recreational interests, except to
the extent that customary and recreational non-commercial interests must be provided
for to some degree where they exist. Within that framework, the Act permits the
preference of one sector to the disadvantage of another; for example to provide for
greater allowance for recreational interests in proportion to the commercial allocation.
56
Notwithstanding the Minister’s discretion to allocate catch, case law also considers
that it is not unreasonable for commercial and recreational fishers to share some of the
“pain” from a reduction in the TAC. There is no requirement that the interests of
recreational or commercial fishers must be fully provided for.
57
MFish considers that, all other things being equal, in situations where there is an
absence of information about the relative benefits to be derived from allocating the
TAC to one or other sector, then it is equitable for both commercial and recreational
fishers to ensure the sustainability of the stock through a reduction in the TACC and
recreational allowance. Equally, commercial and recreational fishers should derive
shared benefit from the rebuild of a fishery in terms of the allocation provided to the
respective sectors, all other things being equal.
Adverse Effect
58
SeaFIC considers that the Act anticipates and provides for a level of effects of fishing
on the aquatic environment and that these effects are lawful unless they are identified
as being “adverse”. However, the statement that a determination of whether an effect
is adverse is “likely to be influenced by stakeholder/community perceptions as to what
is acceptable” confuses a “biological” interpretation of the adverse effects of fishing
with a more political interpretation based on community perceptions. SeaFIC suggest
that this implies that while the Act sets some threshold level of adverse effect based
on “scientific knowledge”, it does not prevent lesser effects also being classified as
“adverse” if there is a wider “community perception” that the effect is unacceptable.
41 of 397
59
SeaFIC believes it is wrong to suggest that “community perception” forms a separate
head for consideration of whether an effect is adverse, beyond a consideration of
whatever particular level of adverse effect on the aquatic environment is specified in a
particular section of the Act. While the Minister clearly has considerable discretion to
decide what level of control is needed to ensure sustainability and avoid, remedy or
mitigate adverse effects, having done so, SeaFIC believe that he can not further
restrict utilisation for reasons of community perception.
MFish response
60
The obligation to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects of fishing pursuant to
s 8(2)(b) of the Act is the second element of ensuring sustainability. MFish reiterate
that consideration as to what is adverse may be assessed based on scientific
knowledge about the environment, but may also be influenced by
stakeholder/community perceptions as to what is acceptable.
61
The Act does not define an “adverse effect”; rather it defines the term “effect”. The
term “effect” has a broad definition, including effects that are temporary or
permanent; past, present, or future; cumulative; any potential effect of high
probability; and any potential effect of low probability, which has a high potential
impact.
62
No threshold is specified as to the magnitude of any adverse effect required before
any measure in response is to be adopted. Hence the measures adopted in response
should be commensurate with the nature and extent of the adverse effect. There are a
number of other factors that will influence whether an effect is considered adverse:
characteristics of the aquatic environment; impacts from the removal of fish; the scale,
intensity, and duration of effects; scarcity of environment type at local, regional,
national, international level; resilience of habitat; the effects of activities other than
fishing at a region level, the relationship of fishing effects to this; human perception
and values; and the level of information available on any of these.
Shelving of ACE
63
SeaFIC disagrees with the MFish position on shelving (retaining a relatively high
TACC and relying on the actions of quota owners to set aside ACE in years of lower
abundance). SeaFIC acknowledge that there is a difference of legal opinion between
MFish and SeaFIC over the extent to which shelving can be used to achieve the
purpose of the Act, particularly when a stock is considered to be below BMSY.
64
SeaFIC’s position interprets the Act as allowing the shelving of ACE by the
commercial sector to meet the Minister’s obligations under the Act to rebuild stocks
in fisheries where the best available information suggests that the TAC is above the
level which can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). They base this
position on their interpretation of sections 8, 11, 13, 20 and 21 of the Act.
65
ECO are not in favour of shelving and consider it goes against the fundamental
direction of the quota management system and the setting of catch limits.
42 of 397
MFish response
66
MFish has a clear and consistent position on the interpretation of the Act in regards to
shelving. Under s 13 of the Act the Minister has a mandatory duty to set the TAC at a
level that enables a stock below BMSY to be restored to a level that can produce MSY.
The minimum requirement is that a TAC that will rebuild the biomass of a stock to
BMSY over the maximum period the Minister considers acceptable. Nothing in the
purpose statement, or any other provision under the Act, alters this requirement. The
Minister has discretion as to the way and rate a stock is restored to or above BMSY.
Shelving may be used as a mechanism to assist the way or rate a stock is restored to
BMSY and the existence of voluntary catch reduction measures such as shelving may
give greater assurance that any sustainability risks in management options adopted are
being mitigated. However, the Minister may not consider shelving as an alternative to
reducing the TAC in situations where the stock status clearly calls upon the Minister
to do so in terms of statutory obligations under s 13.
43 of 397
44 of 397
Section Two
Fishstocks for Review
45 of 397
46 of 397
ORANGE ROUGHY (ORH 1) – FINAL ADVICE
Figure 1. Orange roughy Quota Management
Areas (QMAs).
Figure 2. The four sub-areas (labelled A-D) in
ORH 1, and the Mercury-Colville ‘box’.
C
B
Mercury-Colville box
A
D
Executive Summary
1
Information on ORH 1 to underpin an assessment of stock status and long-term yield
is not available. There is neither an evaluation of stock size in relation to the biomass
that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY), nor an indication of the
likely trend in stock size under the current Total Allowable Catch (TAC).
2
Taking account of the uncertainty in the best available information, MFish proposes
that you set the TAC under section 13(2)(a) to maintain the stock at or above a level
that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, having regard to the interdependence
of stocks. However, given the level of uncertainty in respect of the information on the
current stock biomass, it is also open to you to set the TAC under section 13(2)(b) to
restore the stock at or above a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield.
3
MFish proposes three options to manage the orange roughy fishery in ORH 1. All
options include a variety of management and sustainability measures that existed
under the Adaptive Management Programme (AMP). Industry has agreed to continue
to implement the measures, which include: sub-area limits, feature limits, biological
sampling, observer coverage, and regular reporting. Their adoption results in a
structured fishing plan to manage risks of localised depletion or sustainability risks to
localised stocks that might exist.
4
Option 1 (status quo) retains the existing TAC, Total Allowable Commercial Catch
(TACC), sub-area and feature limits. Option 1 places more weight on short-term
utilisation and the existing management approach (catch spreading, etc.) as the means
to manage risk. Although retaining the current TAC is not likely to pose a high risk to
47 of 397
the stock in the short term, the longer term sustainability risks are unknown. A TAC
is set to move the stock to BMSY over time; a higher TAC increases the risk that the
stock will not move to or be maintained at BMSY. Option 1 proposes a TAC for which
there is little short-term sustainability risk from catching 1,400 tonnes of roughy this
year; this is different from a sustainable catch over the long term, moving the stock
towards BMSY.
5
Due to the biological characteristics of orange roughy, the nature of the ORH 1
fishery (relatively small aggregations widely dispersed over a large fishing area), and
the sort of information that is being collected on the fishery, evidence of unsustainable
harvesting (at both the stock level and for individual aggregations) will likely only be
available following a major decline in stock size.
6
Accordingly, Option 2 adopts a more cautious approach than Option 1 by reducing the
TAC by approximately 20% to 1,208 tonnes, and the TACC to 1,150 tonnes. Suboptions 2a and 2b provide different voluntary catch limits by sub-area 2 to effect the
TACC reduction. 2a imposes a reduction of approximately 20% to each sub-area,
whereas 2b only reduces sub-area C where the limit has never been caught.
7
Option 2 (and 2a in particular), places greater weight on the uncertainty of the current
information regarding stock status, and the biological characteristics of the species. In
the absence of an assessment of stock status relative to the sustainability of current
catches and the current TAC, Option 2 seeks to reduce risk to the long-term
sustainability of the stock. Given the biological characteristics of this species, the
approach under Option 2 recognises the risk that isolated features within ORH 1 are
particularly susceptible to over-fishing. A TAC reduction is appropriate under
13(2)(a) if you are satisfied that maintaining the biomass at or above BMSY, and
avoiding a risk that the biomass may decline below that target stock level, is best
achieved by a lower fishing mortality.
8
Option 3 places the greatest weight of any of the options on the uncertainty of the
information, takes the most cautious approach in favour of sustainability, and imposes
the greatest short-term economic loss. MFish considers this option is open to you if
you are satisfied that the stock is likely to be below BMSY, and s 13(2)(b) is the
appropriate basis for setting the TAC. Option 3 would reduce the TAC by 38% to 914
tonnes, and the TACC to 870 tonnes. MFish recommends under Option 3 that you
request sub-area limits of 150 t for sub-area A, 380 t for sub-Area B, 190 t for subArea C, and 150 t for sub-Area D, which are calculated by applying a 25% reduction
to the average catch by sub-area over the past five years.
Problem Definition
9
2
Estimating BMSY has not been possible for ORH 1, and there is no way to determine if
the current level of fishing is sustainable in the long term at the stock level, or would
result in overexploitation of localised areas. In setting the appropriate TAC with
respect to BMSY under s 13(2), MFish considers you will be required to consider what
level of sustainability risk is acceptable given the high level of uncertainty.
‘Sub-areas’ are non-statutory regions within ORH 1, labelled from A to D. Figure 2 shows the four sub-areas.
48 of 397
Management Options
10
MFish proposed three management options in the IPP, and these have remained
unchanged in the FAP. Option 2 has two pathways to reach the proposed TACC,
presented as Option 2a and 2b. Both options 2a and 2b are the same statutory
decision – the difference relates to how you request MFish to approach discussions
with quota owners to effect the TAC and TACC decision. You may choose other
options (alternative TAC levels and sustainability measures) that you consider will
best meet your obligations under the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act).
11
As the AMP for ORH 1 has completed its full term review, MFish proposes that the
catch spreading, sub-QMA limits, 3 monitoring and reporting measures formerly
managed under the AMP continue as part of a management and monitoring plan. This
would be implemented through industry agreement with all major quota holders. SubQMA limits and catch-spreading are voluntary, and are not part of your TAC and
TACC decisions.
12
MFish proposes that the agreement and administration of the package of management
measures be formalised under a fisheries plan in place by 1 October 2008.
Summary of Options
13
The options available for consideration are unchanged from the IPP:
a)
Option 1:
AGREE to retain the existing TAC of 1,470 tonnes and TACC of 1,400 tonnes.
Provide an allowance of zero for non-commercial use and an allowance of 70 tonnes
for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
REQUEST that industry adhere to the sub-area and feature limits listed in the Option
1 column in Table 1, and request that industry continue to submit comprehensive
catch reports by feature and sub-area.
OR
b)
Option 2:
AGREE to decrease the TAC to 1,208 tonnes and the TACC to 1,150 tonnes.
Provide an allowance of zero for non-commercial use and an allowance of 58 tonnes
for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
REQUEST that industry adhere to the sub-area and feature limits listed in the
Option 2A column in Table 1, and request that industry continue to submit
comprehensive catch reports by feature and sub-area.
3
Sub-QMA limits includes sub-areas A through D, the Mercury-Colville Box, and ‘features’ within the subareas. Features are smaller zones within sub-areas, centred around an identified underwater feature such as a
seamount.
49 of 397
OR
REQUEST that industry adhere to the sub-area and feature limits listed in the
Option 2B column in Table 1, and request that industry continue to submit
comprehensive catch reports by feature and sub-area.
OR
c)
Option 3
AGREE to decrease the TAC to 914 tonnes and the TACC to 870 tonnes. Provide an
allowance of zero for non-commercial use and an allowance of 44 tonnes for other
sources of fishing related mortality.
AND
REQUEST that industry adhere to the sub-area and feature limits listed in the Option
3 column in Table 1, and request that industry continue to submit comprehensive
catch reports by feature and sub-area.
Table 1
Option 1
(status quo)
Option 2
A
TAC
Allowance for other sources of fishing-related
mortality
Option 3
B
1,470 tonnes
1,208 tonnes
1,208 tonnes
914 tonnes
70 tonnes
58 tonnes
58 tonnes
44 tonnes
Allowance for customary Mäori interests
0
0
0
0
Allowance for recreational fishery interests
0
0
0
0
TACC
Requested sub-area A limit
1,400 tonnes
1,150 tonnes
1,150 tonnes
870 tonnes
200 tonnes
175 tonnes
200 tonnes
150 tonnes
Requested feature limit in sub-area A
Requested sub-area B limit
100 tonnes annual feature limit
500 tonnes
Requested feature limit in sub-area B
Requested sub-area C limit
500 tonnes
380 tonnes
150 tonnes annual feature limit
500 tonnes
Requested feature limit in sub-area C
Requested sub-area D limit
400 tonnes
400 tonnes
250 tonnes
190 tonnes
150 tonnes annual feature limit
200 tonnes
175 tonnes
200 tonnes
Requested feature limit in sub-area D
75 tonnes annual feature limit
Requested Mercury-Colville ‘box’ limit
30 tonnes bycatch-only limit
150 tonnes
Consultation
14
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations
representative of those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects
50 of 397
of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Maori,
environmental, commercial, and recreational interests.
15
Submissions on the IPP were received from:
•
Anton’s Group, representing Anton’s Seafoods Ltd., Anton’s Trawling Company
Ltd., Esperance Fishing Company Ltd., and Orneagan Developments Ltd.
(Anton’s)
•
Environment and Conservation Organisation of NZ Inc. (ECO)
•
The ORH 1 Exploratory Fishing Company Ltd. (EFC)
•
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (RFC)
•
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc. (RF&B)
•
Te Ohu Kai Moana (TOKM)
•
The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd. (SeaFIC)
•
WWF – New Zealand (WWF)
Cost-Benefit Analysis
16
In the New Zealand Fishing Industry Association Inc v Minister of Fisheries
(CA82/97, 22/7/97) case (known as the ‘Snapper 1’ case), the Court of Appeal wrote
“the Minister would be wise to undertake a careful cost/benefit analysis of a
reasonable range of options available to him in moving the fishery towards MSY”.
Appendix 4 provides a tabular summary of the costs and benefits of each option; the
detail of each is provided in the body of the FAP.
17
As a simple summary list, the costs and benefits cannot be summed, or the costs
netted out against the benefits to derive the superior option. In general, there are
unquantified sustainability risks and benefits of the options, with more known (and to
some degree quantifiable) utilisation costs and benefits.
Previous ORH 1 Management Advice
18
ORH 1 was reviewed one year ago, during the October 2006 sustainability round.
Your decision to reduce the TAC and TACC for ORH 1 was challenged, and you
elected to withdraw from proceedings. Accordingly, the TAC and TACC remained
unchanged.
19
When making your decision, you must consider all relevant information, and
disregard any irrelevant considerations. MFish considers the concerns expressed by
some stakeholders over recent ORH 1 advice and management decisions, court
challenges and possible amendments to s 10 of the Act to be irrelevant to your current
sustainability measures decisions. You must review this advice on its own merits
without reference to previous advice.
51 of 397
20
However, some of the documentation relating to last year’s ORH 1 decisions provide
relevant information for this year’s decision. Such information has been incorporated
into this FAP where appropriate. Sources have been footnoted.
Past misreporting
21
Previous ORH 1 advice discussed the issue of misreporting in the ORH 1 fishery.
Due to the reliance on catch and effort trends as the tool by which the effect of the
TAC can be monitored, and feature reporting as a means to manage catch spreading,
misreporting of catch and effort between features and sub-areas undermines the value
of monitoring and management.
22
There have been prosecutions regarding misreporting between features and sub-areas
within ORH 1 under the AMP. The prosecutions focused on approximately
180 tonnes of misreported catch. Once the offenders were convicted and sentencing
concluded, the relevant forms were re-submitted and analysed for the full term AMP
review.
23
Misreporting concerns in ORH 1 are not relevant to decisions on TAC setting under s
13 of the Act. All available steps have been taken to correct and complete the input
data in order to improve the credibility of the subsequent analyses. MFish is satisfied
that the information considered by the AMP Working Group (AMP WG) is the best
available, and is the most credible basis on which to assess and manage ORH 1. This
FAP presents the best information currently available, and incorporates all relevant
information from stakeholder submissions.
Rationale for Management Options
24
The Plenary report for ORH 1, completed following the full term review of the ORH 1
AMP in May 2007, is attached as Appendix 1; species characteristics of orange
roughy are discussed in Appendix 2; the history of the fishery and the management of
ORH 1 under the AMP are discussed in Appendix 3.
25
There is no formal stock assessment for ORH 1 to provide estimates of the maximum
sustainable yield or current stock size relative to BMSY. Information from the
commercial fishery drives the assessment of stock status by the AMP WG.
Results of the full-term AMP review
26
The objectives of the 2001-2006 AMP were to determine stock size, geographical
extent, and long term sustainable yield of the ORH 1 fish stock. The AMP spread
catch between sub-areas, directed exploratory fishing, and provided scientific
observer coverage of around 25-37% of trawl tows. 4 Observers collected information
on target species’ length frequency and sex ratio, and on bycatch. The AMP was able
only to obtain information regarding geographical distribution.
27
The previous WG report, as presented in the Plenary document, stated that “the
current stock size is probably above that which will support the maximum sustainable
yield”. That statement dates to 2001 when the AMP was initiated; following an
4
The observer coverage target in the AMP was 50% of trawl tows.
52 of 397
assessment of the five years of data collected since then, the WG has revised this view
to: “it is not known if recent catch levels or current TACCs are sustainable in the long
term”. The WG was unable to determine the sustainability of catches, because ORH 1
“probably includes a number of constituent stocks”, and “it is not possible to estimate
BMSY for any of the individual stocks, let along aggregate up to an estimate for ORH 1
as a whole.”
28
Moreover, “a better understanding is not possible in the near future. BMSY is difficult
to estimate in situations involving an unknown number of constituent stocks.” The
WG concluded that “no other information can currently be extracted from the existing
data that will provide insight into the status of the ORH 1 stocks”. A 2001 assessment
of yield for the Mercury-Colville ‘box’ serves as the basis for the proposed orange
roughy bycatch limit for that area.
29
The report continues: “The amount of fishing in some areas appears to be low, but
without any indication of current abundance, there is no way to determine if this level
of fishing is in fact sustainable or if current feature limits will avoid overexploitation
of localised areas.”
30
Unstandardised catch per unit effort (CPUE) of tonnes/tow is the major monitoring
tool for ORH1. The fishery has generally operated above the threshold of 2.0 tonnes
per tow, although there is considerable variation between sub-areas, and between
years in the same sub-area (e.g. in 2006, CPUE was 0.97 t/tow in Area A, and 3.18
t/tow in area C; within Area A, CPUE was 3.96 t/tow in 2005, and 0.97 t/tow the
following year).
31
The AMP WG agreed that CPUE does not seem to be a measure of abundance or a
biomass index. For ORH 1, monitoring CPUE is not likely to provide a signal of
stock decline. CPUE has been used in ORH 1 as a management tool: the AMP spread
effort in an attempt to reduce fishing pressure on any one sub-area or feature (and
Area D in particular).
32
ORH 1 is a large area, with roughy spread across a number of areas and features.
Much of the area has not been explored, and there may be other orange roughy
populations in the unexplored parts of ORH 1. MFish is investigating the viability
and utility of a characterisation study to inform future estimates of roughy on known
but unfished features in ORH 1. By analogy with other areas, the likely total stock
size of orange roughy from known features in ORH 1 could be approximated. While
this may be informative, it would still not lead to any conclusive finding about the
sustainability of current harvesting, or the relationship of the stock to BMSY. Within
ORH 1, there are six Seamount Closures and one BPA which are or soon will be
closed to bottom trawling, which may include features that are likely to host roughy
populations.
33
Estimates of stock status and long-term sustainable yield are not expected to be
available in the near future. MFish considers that this is a stock where information is
inadequate and highly uncertain.
34
Obviously a meaningful stock assessment would be desirable to assess stock status
and BMSY, and to determine long-term sustainable yields. However, given the best
available information, MFish considers that it is not possible to assess BMSY for ORH
53 of 397
1. Nevertheless, s 13 requires the Minister to set or vary the TAC with reference to
where the stock is in relation to BMSY. The best available information is presented in
this FAP on ORH 1, and will provide the Minister with a rational basis for his
decision.
35
All of the above information was presented in the IPP. No submission provided
additional information or alternative interpretations.
Assessment of Management Options
TAC
36
You must set a TAC under s 13 that maintains the stock at or above, or moves it
towards or above, a biomass level that can produce the MSY. The available
information for ORH 1 is uncertain and inadequate, and therefore you should be
cautious when making your decision, both in relation to its possible effect on
sustainability and its possible effect on utilisation. Options 2 and 3 adopt a
progressively more cautious approach in favour of sustainability, while still providing
for utilisation.
37
Under s 13, you may set a TAC that maintains the stock (13(2)(a)), rebuilds the stock
(13(2)(b)), or moves the stock from a position where it is above MSY (13(2)(c)), to a
biomass level at or above that which can produce the MSY. Given the level of
uncertainty of the information on stock status, it is not clear which of (a), (b), or (c)
should be applied. MFish proposes that you set the TAC for ORH 1 under section
13(2)(a) to maintain the stock at or above a level that can produce MSY, having
regard to the interdependence of stocks. That does not mean that adjustments to catch
limits cannot be made, provided those adjustments are considered by you to maintain
the stock at or above a biomass that can produce MSY.
38
However, given the uncertainty in the best available information regarding stock size
for ORH 1 and combined with a more cautious assessment of that information, you
may also consider that ORH 1 is more likely to be at a level below BMSY. If so, then s
13(2)(b) may also be an appropriate basis to set the TAC, in which case Option 3 is
likely to be the most suitable option.
39
No submission provided a view on the appropriate section of the Act under which to
set a TAC.
40
Options 2 and 3 propose varying the TAC. MFish is of the view that you can have
regard to the relevant social, cultural and economic factors for all options (an
approach supported by SeaFIC 5). To enable a proper comparison between the three
options, the FAP provides information on social, cultural and economic factors so that
you may determine their relevance.
TACC and Allowances
41
5
The TAC must be apportioned between the relevant sectors and interests set out under
the provisions of s 20 and 21 of the Act. Section 21 prescribes that you shall make
SeaFIC submission to the IPP, dated 27 July 2007, at paragraphs 23-27.
54 of 397
allowances for Maori customary non-commercial interests, recreational fishing
interests, and for any other sources of fishing-related mortality, before setting the
TACC. In determining the TACC and these allowances, the Minster should consider
how the allowances will enable people to provide for their social, economic and
cultural wellbeing (as provided for in the purpose of the Act).
42
There is no known recreational or Mäori customary fishery for ORH 1. MFish
proposes that you set allowances of 0 tonnes for recreational and Mäori customary
fishing – consistent with the status quo that has existed since orange roughy became a
QMS species in 1986. MFish proposes that the current allowance for other sources of
fishing-related mortality be retained at 5% of the TACC, and is combined with the
TACC to make up the TAC.
43
No submission provided alternative information or viewpoints.
Recommended management measures
44
Each option includes a variety of management and sustainability measures that existed
under the AMP by industry agreement. Their adoption would result in a structured
management and monitoring plan to manage risks of localised depletion or
sustainability risks to localised stocks that might exist. Where the options differ is on
the TAC, TACC, and catch limits by sub-area.
45
While the overall ORH 1 TAC and TACC are important, a management and
monitoring plan to spread effort (with good compliance and reporting) most directly
influences the sustainability of the stock or stock complexes, and is therefore critical
to managing risk. As sub-area and feature limits (and reporting on them) cannot be
imposed without agreement, industry co-operation is required. Given the influence of
sub-QMA management on sustainability, the IPP recommended that the general
management approach for ORH 1 continue, including sub-area limits, feature limits,
biological sampling, observer coverage, and regular reporting.
46
The IPP recommended that most elements of the management and monitoring plan
continue to be implemented by industry agreement for the 2007/08 fishing year.
These elements are described in the ORH 1 AMP Management & Monitoring Plan
(M&MP) and Memorandum of Understanding for the Management of the ORH 1
Fishery between the ORH 1 Exploratory Fishing Company (EFC) Ltd & Owners of
ORH 1 Quota (MOU). MFish further recommended that these arrangements be
formalised (in their current or modified form) in a fisheries plan approved under s
11A of the Act by 1 October 2008, and that the Management & Monitoring Plan be
updated and agreed to by quota holders by 1 October 2007.
47
EFC, representing over 90% of quota owners, has agreed to this approach. The
M&MP and the MOU will be updated, and submitted for approval and execution by
quota owners controlling at least 90% of ORH 1 before 15 September 2007. TOKM
will work with EFC on this approach, and will ensure that the measures become
conditions for ACE transfers.
48
The EFC has also undertaken to develop and implement a fisheries plan by October
2008. SeaFIC submitted that it is “willing to provide support in the development of
55 of 397
any fisheries plan for ORH 1” 6; TOKM suggests that “priority should be given to
MFish collaboratively developing a fisheries plan for ORH 1 with quota owners”. 7
49
The table below presents a summary of the recommended management measures. A
full description is found at Appendix 5.
Catch limits for each
sub-area (A, B, C and
D), and limits for each
of the features
Sub-area limits as proposed in each option. Feature limits
per sub-area: A = 100 t, B = 150 t, C = 150 t, D = 75 t,
Mercury Colville Box = 30 t.
Mercury-Colville Box
Maintain a 30 t bycatch-only limit (no orange roughy
targeting in this area).
Monitoring and
reporting
As per the M&MP/MOU with regards to notification,
reporting and ACE sales (see Appendix 5 for details).
Directed exploratory
fishing programme
Suspend for 2007. To be considered by working group to
establish value of continuing following an analysis of
results to date. If useful information is likely to be
generated, the working group can properly structure the
fishing programme in time for the winter 2008 fishery.
Observer coverage
MFish recommends 100% observer coverage for June and
July in sub-area A, C and D, for October in sub-area B.
Outside these months, the standard observer coverage of
approximately 10 to 15% is recommended.
Biological sampling
Standard sampling according to accepted protocols.
50
An analyst in the MFish Deepwater Team will be responsible for monitoring the ORH
1 fishery, and any deviance from the agreed management system will be followed up
with EFC, as will any discrepancies that may be detected between reported data,
statutory forms, and fishery-independent data (such as VMS).
51
MFish advises that fine scale management and reporting is the preferred approach for
this fishery, but that its success depends on all relevant groups working together.
52
MFish notes that the key parties support the development of a fisheries plan approved
under s 11A of the Act. EFC has submitted that it may be appropriate to integrate the
management of ORH 1 under the general orange roughy fishery plan being developed
with the Deepwater Group Limited (subject to approval by shareholders from both
companies). MFish would welcome this approach, with its improved likelihood of
consistent management approaches for orange roughy stocks, and will fully evaluate
this option with the relevant stakeholders.
53
Several submissions discussed whether the fisheries plan should be structured around
s 13 or s 14 (s 14 establishes a TAC that meets the Purpose of the Act, rather than in
relation to BMSY, as required by s 13). MFish agrees with SeaFIC that such issues are
6
7
SeaFIC submission to the IPP, dated 27 July 2007, at paragraph 55.
TOKM submission to the IPP, at paragraph 28.
56 of 397
matters for discussion of a fisheries plan; as such they are not relevant to this FAP, but
these views will usefully inform future work on the management of orange roughy.
Option 1 - Retain the 1 470 tonne TAC and 1 400 tonne TACC
54
Option 1 retains the current TAC of 1,470 tonnes, the TACC of 1,400 tonnes, and
sub-area limits of 200 t for sub-area A, 500 t for sub-Area B, 500 t for sub-Area C,
and 200 t for sub-Area D. This option also proposes the continuation of the feature
limits by sub-area and other recommended management measures described above
and in Appendix 5.
55
At the start of the AMP, scientific advice was that the stock was likely to have been
above the BMSY level. The latest scientific advice has confirmed that it is now
unknown whether or not the ORH 1 stock is at, above, or below BMSY. MFish
considers that continuing the current TAC could enable ORH 1 to be managed at, or
above, BMSY. However, there is increased risk that the TAC under this option will not
achieve this target level over the long-term.
56
The ORH 1 TACC has not been fully caught since it was set at 1,400 tonnes (70 to
92% caught, mean of 82%). 8 This is not entirely unexpected in a fishery managed by
spreading effort into unfished areas; Area C for example, with a limit of 500 t has
never been more than 75% caught. Area B now represents the largest ORH 1 fishery
(since the decline of Mercury-Colville in Area D), with a relatively stable target catch
of about 450 t, close to the 500 t area limit.
Option 2 - Reduce the TAC to 1 208 tonnes and the TACC to 1 150 tonnes
57
Option 2 adopts a more cautious approach to ensuring sustainability than Option 1 by
reducing the TAC to 1,208 tonnes, the TACC to 1,150 tonnes. This option adopts a
correspondingly less cautious approach to providing for utilisation that does Option 1.
This option also proposes the continuation of the feature limits by sub-area and other
recommended management measures described above and in Appendix 5.
58
Two sub-options are presented with regards to requested sub-area limits. In Option
2a, an approximately 20% reduction across all sub-areas is requested, resulting in subarea limits to 175 t for sub-area A, 400 t for sub-area B, 400 t for sub-area C, and 175
t for sub-area D. 9 In Option 2b, the entire reduction in TACC is taken from sub-area
C, resulting in sub-area limits of 200 t for sub-area A, 500 t for sub-area B, 250 t for
sub-area C, and 200 t for sub-area D.
59
The proposed reduction to the TAC of 20% under Option 2, in particular if effected
through Option 2a, may provide greater certainty over the longer term that ORH 1
will be managed at or above BMSY, in light of the uncertainties in the best available
information and uncertain stock information. It is, however, not possible to ascertain
8
As of 27 August 2007, catch for the 2006/07 fishing year is approximately 1,020 tonnes. Over the past ten
years, very little orange roughy has been harvested in September. Accordingly, it is unlikely that more than
1,100 tonnes (or 79% of the TACC) will be taken in 2006/07.
9
Calculations of catch by sub-area for tows targeting ORH are taken from Table 1 from AMP WG 2007/30,
Report to SeaFIC on the orange roughy Adaptive Management Programme in ORH 1 by Owen Anderson, dated
April 2007. Table 1 from this report was reproduced to show all catch of ORH irrespective of target in personal
communication to MFish on 7 June 2007. These sources are used throughout the FAP.
57 of 397
with any certainty the actual or likely effect of the proposed TAC on the biomass and
sustainability of ORH1, and is best characterised as a risk mitigation approach. The
cost to utilisation must be weighed against this mitigation in risks to sustainability.
60
Option 2, and Option 2a in particular, places greater weight on the level of uncertainty
generally, and the risk that a sustainability problem might not be detected in advance
of substantial stock depletion (due largely to the biological nature of the stock, and the
use of CPUE analysis as the primary assessment tool). Since stock status is not
known, Option 2, and Option 2a in particular, provides greater certainty to the
decision maker that sustainability is ensured over the longer term. This greater level
of certainty must be balanced with the greater costs for industry of this option.
61
Option 2a would result in an appreciable reduction in fishing mortality, as each subarea limit is reduced. Since the current limit for sub-area A and B is close to the
current catch for those areas, catch would be reduced in A and B. The limit for subarea C would still be greater than any catch recorded, allowing for some expansion in
catch in this area (within the limits of the reduced TACC). The limit for sub-area D
would be modestly above the long term average catch for this sub-area, but is lower
than the most recent year’s catch.
62
Option 2b would effect the reduction in the TACC only by reducing the limit in subarea C. 250 t is just over the 5-year average catch (average is 233.3 tonnes) for this
sub-area, although in 2005/06, catch was estimated at 375 tonnes, a 30% increase over
the next-highest catch from that sub-area. As of 28 August 2007, catch in sub-area C
is 315 tonnes for 2006/07. 10 Although Option 2b removes the ‘headroom’ (the
difference between actual and allowable catch), this calculation is done based on the
average catch. MFish notes that in the recent two years, catch has well exceeded the
average, so a 250 t limit would reduce catch in sub-area C.
63
In the absence of an assessment of stock size or status or sustainable yield, and
therefore no assessment that the current TAC is sustainable, this approach adopts a
more cautious catch limit with respect to risk to sustainability. The cautious approach
under Option 2 recognises the specific biological characteristics of this species and the
isolated features within ORH 1 that are particularly susceptible to over-fishing.
Option 3 - Reduce the TAC to 914 tonnes and the TACC to 870 tonnes
64
Option 3 adopts the most cautious approach, by reducing the TAC to 914 tonnes, and
the TACC to 870 tonnes, and requesting sub-area limits of 150 t for sub-area A, 380 t
for sub-area B, 190 t for sub-area C, and 150 t for sub-area D. This option also
proposes the continuation of the feature limits by sub-area and other recommended
management measures described above and in Appendix 5.
65
You may select Option 3 while setting the TAC under s 13(2)(a), if you consider the
reduction necessary to maintain the stock at or above a biomass that can produce
MSY. However, MFish considers a reduction of this magnitude may be more suited
to a determination that setting the TAC under s 13(2)(b) is more appropriate, and that
10
Given the historical pattern of fishing, with only 200 kg recorded as caught in sub-area C in September, this is
likely to be close to the total catch for sub-area C for 2006/07.
58 of 397
the risk that ORH 1 is below BMSY is sufficiently great that a reduction is required to
rebuild the stock.
66
The TACC under Option 3 is a 38% reduction over the current catch limit. It would
be effected by reducing each sub-area limit by 25% from the five-year average
landings by sub-area. Option 3 removes all ‘headroom’ from all sub-areas.
67
Option 3 would result in the greatest reduction in fishing mortality across ORH 1. In
one respect, Option 3 provides the greatest certainty that over the longer term ORH 1
will be managed at or above BMSY, in light of the uncertainties in the best available
information and uncertain stock information.
68
Option 3 places the greatest weight on the level of uncertainty generally, and adopts
the most cautious catch limit. Option 3 adopts a TAC that will likely provide for
management at or above BMSY at the ORH 1 stock level, although there remains risk
that parts of the stock will be over-exploited.
Discussion of TAC options
69
Industry has agreed to a structured fishing approach, including the setting of sub-area
and feature limits, as well as the range of measures described in Appendix 5.
Views from Stakeholders
70
Quota owners have pointed out that there is no evidence that the ORH 1 fishery is
under stress, through, for example, declining catch rates. 11 EFC has stated that “the
fishery is not sending any signals to the fishers that there needs to be a reduction in
the level of catch.” 12 EFC submits that there are no reports from skippers that catches
or ORH 1 are getting scarcer, or additional effort is required to maintain catches.
Instead, “catches are being spread and new concentrations of ORH 1 are being found
on a regular basis”. 13
71
Paul Starr, an independent scientist contracted to SeaFIC, stated that “analysis shows
that the catch rates in [the sub-areas other than D] are above the 2.0 t/tow threshold
specified in the AMP, indicating that the Fishstock is most likely in reasonable health
and not affected by strong sustainability concerns.” 14 Therefore, according to EFC,
“retaining the current TAC/TACC will not pose a risk to the stock in the long term”. 15
72
EFC has submitted that “the fishery is largely undeveloped and conservatively
managed and that the fishery has the potential to sustainably produce levels of catch
11
Submission to the Primary Production Committee on the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill on behalf of the
Anton’s Group of Companies. Submission dated 16 April 2007. See also EFC submission to the Review of
Sustainability Measures and Other Management Controls for the 2007/08 Fishing Year, dated 31 July 2007.
Paragraph 6.5.
12
Submission from the ORH 1 Exploratory Fishing Company Limited, dated 31 July, Re: Review of
Sustainability Measures and Other Management Controls for the 2006/2007 Fishing Year (1 October Stocks).
13
EFC submission to the Review of Sustainability Measures and Other Management Controls for the 2007/08
Fishing Year, dated 31 July 2007, paragraph 6.6.
14
Affidavit of Paul Joseph Starr in support of application for interim relief. Filed in the High Court of New
Zealand, 22 September 2006. Paragraph 14.
15
EFC submission to the IPP, dated 31 July 2007. Paragraph 5.2.
59 of 397
above the current TACC”. 16 Anton’s has characterised this fishery as “steady with
potential for expansion” 17 and SeaFIC submits that there may be considerable
developmental potential within this fishery. 18 The basis for SeaFIC’s assessment is
that less than 0.2% of the fishable area was trawled between 2000 and 2006. 19
73
With their submission, Anton’s included a CD-ROM showing digital photos of
codends filled with orange roughy, and acoustic data from the sounder from FV
Seamount Explorer. The screen shots show (unidentified) fish aggregations along the
bottom at depths of 800-1100 metres, and are provided to present “an informative
visual outline of the fishery”. 20 The CD-ROM has been provided for your
information.
74
Anton’s believes “there is nothing to suggest that the current catch rates cannot be
maintained”. 21 Moreover, if there “were any indications that the current TACC was
unsustainable then the ORH 1 EFC, as the relevant stakeholder organisation, would
support a reduction in the TACC”. 22
75
SeaFIC has pointed out in a recent communication that a sensible approach to
gathering information, such as on stock status, “is to actually do something [i.e. fish at
a particular level] and then carefully monitor the effects of that activity and adjust
management approaches in response to the information gathered.” 23 By developing a
‘survey-like’ approach to management, rotating effort between areas over a multi-year
cycle, may allow for catch rates to “be interpreted as relative indices at least of local
abundance to guide management”. 24 This would, in effect, be looking for the ‘signal’
that the EFC has not yet seen. This is ‘adaptive management’, and is based on (and a
further developed form of) the approach taken to manage ORH 1 for much of the past
decade.
76
Given the willingness to develop a fisheries plan, and no sustainability concern for
this year, SeaFIC and TOKM submit that the current TAC should be maintained for a
further year. According to SeaFIC, this “would provide [a] stronger basis for
developing an enduring long term strategy for the sustainable management of ORH 1
than the imposition of a TAC reduction that could disrupt the fishery and cause
significant economic impacts in the interim.” 25
16
EFC submission to the IPP, dated 31 July 2007, paragraph 2.5.
Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee on the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill on behalf
of the Anton’s Group of Companies. Submission dated 16 April 2007. Paragraph 64, p.13. Repeated in the
EFC submission to the IPP, dated 31 July 2007, paragraph 6.6.
18
SeaFIC submission on the IPP, 27 July 2007, at paragraph 62.
19
SeaFIC submission on the IPP, 27 July 2007, at paragraph 61.
20
EFC submission to the IPP, dated 31 July 2007, paragraph 4.1 to 4.5.
21
Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee on the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill on
behalf of the Anton’s Group of Companies. Submission dated 16 April 2007. Paragraph 64, p.13.
22
EFC submission to the IPP, dated 31 July 2007, paragraph 6.5. See also the Submission to the Primary
Production Select Committee on the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill on behalf of the Anton’s Group of
Companies. Submission dated 16 April 2007. Paragraph 63, p.13: if there was “any evidence of stress then the
Submitters, as the majority quota holder, would be prepared to accept any cuts which need to be made in the
long term interest of the fishery and their quota holdings”.
23
The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee on
the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill. Submission dated 13 April 2007.
24
SeaFIC submission on the IPP, 27 July 2007, at paragraph 49.
25
SeaFIC submission on the IPP, 27 July 2007, at paragraph 58.
17
60 of 397
77
RFC submit that fisheries should be healthy and well-managed, and support option 3,
to reduce the TACC to 870 tonnes.
78
ECO, RF&B, and WWF support a TAC of less than 500 tonnes, which is lower than
the options considered in the IPP. The submitters support a TAC reduction as a
precautionary measure, given the uncertainty regarding stock status, the vulnerability
of orange roughy to overfishing, and environmental impact of fishing practices. The
ENGO view is that the absence of information should require lower catch limits,
although there is no particular rationale for the preference for a 500 t TAC (except
that it is lower than the most conservative option in the IPP, and therefore more
cautious in favour of sustainability).
79
Therefore there is agreement between MFish and the WG, quota owners, and vessel
operators that there is no evidence of an immediate sustainability risk. The RFC and
ENGO submissions did not present an alternative view on this point. However, there
is a divergence of views between submitters when recommending what management
action be taken in such circumstances.
80
To summarise the view from industry (SeaFIC, Anton’s, EFC, TOKM):
81
•
the TAC and TACC should remain unchanged, at least in the short term;
•
the focus should be on the development of a well-designed structured fishing
programme to ensure the careful development and management of the fishery;
•
a fishery plan, incorporating this approach should be the management vehicle in
the future; and
•
the current limit is appropriate given the development of a structured fisheries plan
in the near future, and the potential presence of orange roughy in unexplored
regions of ORH 1.
To summarise the view from the ENGOs (RF&B, ECO, WWF):
•
the TAC and TACC should drop significantly, to a precautionary limit of less than
500 tonnes;
•
this reduced limit is appropriate given the biological characteristics of the species,
the impact of trawling on the seabed, and the lack of information on stock status.
MFish Analysis and Comment
82
Due to the biological characteristics of orange roughy, the nature of the ORH 1
fishery (widely dispersed over a large area fishing relatively smaller aggregations),
and the sort of information that has been collected on a fishery of those
characteristics, evidence of unsustainable harvesting levels and stock decline will
likely only be available following a major stock decline. MFish agrees with SeaFIC
that a fine-scale management approach provides the best opportunity to detect and
respond to a sustainability risk. However, MFish considers that this does not mean
that the risk will be detected, but rather there is a greater likelihood than would be the
case with management at the QMA level.
61 of 397
83
Therefore, the updated information currently available on the stock at this fine-scale
level could be considered annually, and each year the risk to the stock for that year
could legitimately be judged low, until the stock was overexploited with dismal
prospects for recovery. Alternatively (and also plausibly, given the level of
uncertainty), the annual short-term risk could equally continue indefinitely with no
long-term overexploitation.
84
The history of orange roughy management in New Zealand has several examples of
high early catch rates, followed by a sharp decline in CPUE, and evidence of serial
depletion. Because of the aggregating behaviour of orange roughy, it is easy to
overestimate the unfished biomass. Given these characteristics, and the low long-term
sustainable yields, the BMSY target has been exceeded in many orange roughy
fisheries. 26
85
There is no discernable CPUE trend in ORH 1. It is possible that catch rates (t/tow)
could remain high, and certainly above the threshold of 2.0 t/tow, until the stock
becomes severely depleted.
The link between any CPUE level and stock
sustainability is at best weak and likely undetectable.
86
The use of CPUE, despite its shortcomings, has been employed because of the size of
the stock – an investment into better information has not been deemed affordable
given the likely return. 27 More costly research, such as acoustic surveys, may allow
more accurate monitoring, although it is also possible that a substantial investment
would not lead to any improved information or reduced uncertainty.
87
As SeaFIC has argued in a general context in a submission to the Primary Production
Committee, the extent of precautionary measures must be commensurate with the
potential risks. 28 As put by the Deepwater Group Limited, there “must be a
reasonable balance between the stringency of precautionary measures (with their
associated financial or opportunity costs) and the seriousness and irreversibility of the
potential threat”. 29 Although not made with reference to ORH 1 specifically, MFish
agrees with the comments, and their application to ORH 1. Information is provided in
this FAP both on the potential threat to sustainability of ORH 1, and on the likely
effect on fishers. You should examine the information on both sustainability and
financial impacts in this particular case, and decide upon the weight given them.
88
MFish agrees with SeaFIC that the “acceptability of uncertainty diminishes as the
severity of potential negative effects increases”. 30 Due to the high degree of
uncertainty, in deciding between the options you should therefore form a view as to
the possible severity of the possible ORH 1 depletion in determining if the level of
26
Source: Annal, Clark, Clement and Cornelius, Management of New Zealand orange roughy fisheries – a deep
learning curve, in Deep Sea 2003: Conference on the Governance and Management of Deep-sea Fisheries.
FAO 3/1. 2005.
27
An acoustic survey would likely cost millions of dollars, exceeding the value of the fishery. MFish and the
EFC both consider this cost to be prohibitive, and not warranted by the prospective catch.
28
The New Zeland Seafood Industry Council Ltd Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee on
the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill. Submission dated 13 April 2007. Paragraph 72, p.18.
29
Deepwater Group Ltd Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee on the Fisheries Act 1996
Amendment Bill. Submission dated 13 April 2007. Paragraph 11, page 2.
30
The New Zeland Seafood Industry Council Ltd Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee on
the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill. Submission dated 13 April 2007. Paragraph 72, p.18.
62 of 397
uncertainty is acceptable. The greater the consequences of stock depletion, the more
certain you should be that the effect of your decisions will avoid this outcome.
Way and rate of moving to BMSY
89
Section 13(2)(a), maintaining a stock at or above BMSY, does not require a
consideration of the way and rate a stock moves to the target. However, given the
level of uncertainty on stock size, MFish has advised (at paragraphs 37-38) a more
cautious assessment of that information s 13(2)(b) may also be an appropriate basis to
set the TAC to rebuild the stock. This section discusses additional considerations if
you choose to act under s 13(2)(b).
90
If you determine that a rebuild is needed and a reduction is required to rebuild the
stock is appropriate, you must decide on the way and the rate to rebuild the stock.
MFish has provided you with two possible TAC levels (1150 t and 870 t). There is no
statutory guidance on what an appropriate ‘way and rate’ might be in any given case –
it is a matter for you to determine having regard to such social, cultural, and economic
factors you consider relevant. The social, cultural and economic factors that MFish
views as relevant to a consideration of way and rate are set out in detail in paragraphs
107 to 121.
91
In the case of ORH 1, given the uncertainty information on stock size and distribution,
it is not possible to determine any meaningful periods of rebuild or candidate way and
rate assessments for your consideration. With such uncertainty over current stock
status, it is equally not possible to measure the ‘rate’ of movement towards a target
level. However, if you determine that a stock rebuild is appropriate under the
circumstances, MFish considers that a smaller TAC reduction would likely provide
for a slower rebuild (stock increase) than that which otherwise would occur under
Option 3. You may consider a slower rebuild to be appropriate given the social,
cultural and economic factors discussed at paragraphs 107 to 121.
92
Similarly, you may consider a series of staged TAC cuts as a different ‘way’ of
rebuilding ORH 1 to the target level, which would also provide for a slower rebuild
than that which otherwise would occur under a single larger TAC reduction. Such a
staged reduction may allow fishers to mitigate some of the adverse economic, social
and cultural impacts of a large TAC reduction. For example, in light of the significant
effect that Option 3 is likely to have on short term utilisation by commercial ORH 1
fishers, it is open to you to make a smaller TAC reduction than that proposed by
Option 3 (such as the reduction proposed by Option 2) with a view to making (in
principle) a further reduction for the 1 October 2008/09 fishing year. In other words,
you may select any series of staged TAC reductions (including reductions less than
those proposed by option 2 and 3) to reach the ultimate target level. MFish considers
that if you are rebuilding the stock, any TAC and TACC between those of Option 1
and 3 are reasonable. MFish could provide you with further advice on this approach
should you wish to make a decision on this basis.
93
That said, you must be aware that any future decision (as part of a staged reduction,
such as for the October 2008/09 fishing year) on the TAC would be a fresh decision,
based on the best information available at that time. MFish advises that it is unlikely
that there will be any better information at that time in relation to the stock with
respect to BMSY, or improved way and rate assessments for ORH 1.
63 of 397
94
EFC has submitted that any catch limit reduction would have substantial adverse
economic impacts. If this is the case, then several of the economic (and ancillary
social) consequences might occur irrespective of a staged reduction designed to
mitigate these effects.
95
MFish acknowledges that, having considered such economic, social and cultural
factors as those outlined in paragraphs 107 to 121), it is also open to you to prefer the
level of TAC reduction proposed by Option 3 in order to provide what may be a faster
period of rebuild for ORH 1. This, in effect, would be to choose that the way and rate
of rebuilding the stock should be through a one-time TAC and TACC reduction. As
noted previously, MFish considers that Option 3 would provide greater certainty that
over the longer term ORH 1 will be managed at or above BMSY, in light of the
uncertainties in the best available information.
Statutory Considerations
96
When setting sustainability measures, and when making decisions under the authority
of the Act, you are required to consider a series of principles and factors.
Interdependence of stocks: section 13(2)(a) and (b)
97
This section should be read in conjunction with the fish bycatch section (paragraph
129).
98
Available information about the interdependence of stocks is inadequate to provide
guidance on the appropriate level for a TAC. At times there has been significant ORH
1 bycatch to targeted fishing for other deepwater species (such as cardinal fish and
alfonsino), and this could have contributed to overcatch of sub-area and feature limits.
99
Between 2001−02 and 2005−06, the estimated catch of targeted orange roughy ranged
from 872 to 1183 tonnes. Over the same years, the estimated bycatch of orange
roughy taken when fishing for cardinal fish ranged between 11 and 122 tonnes per
year, and the bycatch of orange roughy taken when fishing for alfonsino ranged from
an estimated 1 to 102 tonnes per year. In general, the trend in ORH 1 has been a
steady decrease in the volumes of orange roughy taken as bycatch; in 2005/06, less
than 2% of the orange roughy catch was taken as a bycatch. Almost all bycatch
orange roughy last year came from sub-area D as a bycatch in the target cardinal fish
fishery.
100
However, as the TACCs for several deepwater stocks are under-caught, catch in these
stocks could increase (and therefore ORH 1 bycatch). For example, the TACCs for
CDL 1, BYX 1, RIB 1, and RBY 1 have been greatly under-caught during the last five
years. 31
101
On balance, MFish advises that bycatch is not a significant consideration in setting a
TAC for ORH 1.
102
As noted above, you may determine that the risk that ORH1 is below BMSY is
significant, given the uncertainty in the best available information and applying a
31
Except BYX1 in 2004/05, in which catch equalled the TACC.
64 of 397
cautious approach to sustainability. If so, then s 13(2)(b) is the appropriate basis to
set the TAC. Under this subsection, as well as having regard to the interdependence
of stocks in considering the way and rate the ORH 1 should be moved towards BMSY,
you must also consider the period of time appropriate for doing so, having regard to
the biological characteristics of ORH 1 and any environmental conditions affecting
ORH 1:
a)
Biological characteristics: orange roughy are late maturing and very longlived, which are biological characteristics that render them slow to recover
from overfishing. Accordingly, the rate of rebuild would be long, in the order
of generations. Orange roughy form aggregations both to spawn and outside
the spawning period over identifiable features, making them susceptible to
overfishing and localised depletion.
b)
Environmental conditions:
MFish is not aware of any specific
environmental conditions affecting the ORH1 stock. However, environmental
factors may have influenced the distribution of orange roughy, contributing to
the rapid decline in abundance in the Mercury-Colville Box in the late 1990s.
Purpose of the Act: section 8
103
The options presented provide for different levels of utilisation through the setting of
catch limits and allowances. The sustainability risk may be greater under Option 1;
Options 2 and 3 are a more cautious approach, since a lower catch, in the absence of
information, has a higher probability of being sustainable over the long term.
104
You must weigh up providing for the utilisation of orange roughy with ensuring the
sustainability of orange roughy – however, ensuring sustainability is the ultimate
objective. In this particular case, the decision is confounded by unquantified
sustainability risks and benefits of TAC levels, and utilisation risks being more easily
quantified. You must be satisfied that your decision will ensure sustainability while
providing for utilisation. This does not require the selection of Option 2 or 3; given
the uncertainty of information, you must exercise your judgement, and may determine
that Option 1 satisfies your obligation with respect to sustainability. With respect to
ORH 1, given the uncertainty of the information and the biological characteristics of
the species, MFish considers that all options are reasonable and consistent with the
Purpose of the Act.
105
The ENGO submissions support a TAC and TACC reduction greater than that of
Option 3. In MFish’s view, in the absence of evidence of immediate sustainability
risk, MFish has judged that the under Option 3 represents the outer boundary of what
is reasonable. That said, given the available information, there is room for broad
interpretation of whether the drastic catch reductions suggested by ENGOs (which
assume a high degree of caution in favour of a reduced sustainability risk) could
arguably meet the Purpose of the Act. Therefore, you are entitled to adopt a different
view than that of MFish.
106
While you must consider both providing for utilisation and ensuring sustainability in
your decision, you are entitled to determine that the protection of orange roughy from
over-exploitation warrants more weight being given to the sustainability element over
the utilisation element of the Purpose of the Act. You are also entitled to determine
that the combined effect of his tolerance for sustainability risk with the socio65 of 397
economic factors mean that a TAC reduction does not best meet the purpose of the
Act.
Social, cultural and economic wellbeing and factors: section 8, section
13(3) and 13(4)
107
Retaining the current TAC and TACC would enable greater utilisation benefits, at
least in the short term. It also provides a greater number of CPUE data points, which
is cost-effective data gathering. Reducing the TAC and TACC under Option 2 would
constrain utilisation, and Option 2a in particular would considerably reduce revenues
from the fishery. Option 3 imposes the greatest constraint on utilisation.
Economic wellbeing and factors
108
The ORH 1 catch is New Zealand’s second largest after ORH 3B, taking about 8% of
the total orange roughy landings. ORH 1 fishing is conducted throughout the year,
although large catches are taken in the June - July spawning season, and October in
sub-area B. Three companies hold 90% of ORH 1 quota; the remainder is settlement
quota held by 38 different Maori interests.
109
Since 2001/02, between 4 and 7 vessels (from 3 to 7 companies) have recorded ORH
1 catch in excess of 5 tonnes each year. 12 vessels have recorded catch in excess of 5
tonnes at least once over the five-year period. The vessels in the fleet range between
25 and 44 metres, with an average length of approximately 33 metres. The ORH 1
fleet is composed primarily of domestic fresher vessels (no freezing capacity) with
only minor participation by foreign charter vessels.
110
The ORH 1 fishery is a significant contributor to the $84.1 million export value
(2006) of orange roughy. Of the various export states, 87% by value (or 64% by
weight) of orange roughy is either chilled or frozen fillets. It is not possible to
determine the percentage of ORH 1 that is exported as fillets (as opposed to a lessprocessed state), but if it is significant, then there would be substantial shore-based
value-added for the ORH 1 catch.
111
The direct economic effects of each option are estimated in the following table:
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
1,400
1,150
870
$4.19
$3.44
$2.60
Export value (millions) 33
$6.34
$5.21
$3.94
Reduction over status quo
0
18%
38%
TACC (tonnes)
Gross landed value (millions)
32
32
Gross landed value estimated by multiplying the port price ($2.99/kg for 2007/08) by the TACC.
Export value was estimated by multiplying the export price by the TACC. In 2006, 4,601 tonnes of orange
roughy fillets (fresh and frozen) were sold for $72.93 million. The standard conversion factor for fillets is 3.5,
so 4,601 tonnes of fillets is estimated to equal 16,103 tonnes of orange roughy (greenweight). Therefore, in
fillet form, the average price is $4.53 per greenweight kilogram.
33
66 of 397
112
This table assumes that the full TACC is caught. Over the past five years, the TACC
has been 70 to 92% caught. Therefore the table overestimates both the economic
value of Option 1, and the per cent reduction over the status quo. If the average of
actual catches by sub-area over five years is used, then Option 2b imposes no landed
value or export value reductions (as the option reduces the TACC only by eliminating
the headroom – or the unused portion of the catch limit – in sub-area C). 34 MFish
notes that catches from the two most recent fishing years (2005/06 and 2006/07) from
sub-area C are both above the five-year average, and therefore a lower limit as
proposed by Option 2b would result in catch reductions in sub-area C.
113
Information on the economic consequences of the catch limit reductions last year was
produced in response to the IPP of June 2006, during court proceedings following the
Minister’s decision in September 2006, and in submissions to the 2007 IPP. This
provides guidance to the Minister on the possible economic consequences of the
options. Last year’s proposed TACC was 800 t (moderately more severe than Option
3 this year); Option 2, with a TACC of 1,150 t is in between the current limit and that
proposed last year. Comments received with regard to an 800 t TACC likely
represent the outer boundary of possible economic impacts of the current set of
options. Fishers have proffered the following views and information on the economic
effects of the TAC reductions:
a)
Anton’s, representing 66.3% of ORH 1 quota, argued that the proposed
reductions would be “extremely detrimental.” The immediate impact would
be a loss in gross revenue of between $0.75 and $1.6 million. The EFC
submission puts the total loss across all quota holders at $1.3 to $2.7 million.
This estimate is based on an assumption that 1,400 tonnes would otherwise be
caught; since the TACC has been consistently undercaught, this slightly
overestimates the revenue loss that would result from either Option 2 or 3.
The calculated revenue loss was based on a sale price of USD $4.50/lb, and an
exchange rate of $0.66. MFish estimates that the price for orange roughy
fillets has softened, and the current exchange rate is about $0.70. EFC submits
that the greenweight port price has dropped to $2.50/kg for 2007. The
consequence of these changes (i.e. how it affects an economic loss calculation)
depends on the nature of the sales arrangements made with US buyers.
b)
With regards to last year’s proposed TACC reduction, Anton’s submitted that
they would have to tie up a vessel and lay off staff”. 35 Anton’s confirmed in
34
Option 2b effects the TACC reduction by reducing the sub-area catch limit for sub-area C from its current
level of 500 tonnes down to 250 tonnes. All other sub-area limits remain unchanged. The following table
shows the actual catch from sub-area C:
As the table illustrates, there is no landed value or export value loss for the
Year
Landings
average Area C. For 2002, 2003 and in particular 2006 and 2007, when the catch
2001/02
280.6
was higher than the average, a sub-area limit of 250 tonnes would impose some
2002/03
285.7
economic loss.
2003/04
142.4
2004/05
190.6
2006/06
375.3
2006/07
315*
* As at 28 August 2007. There has historically be very little catch in sub-Area C in
September, so 315 t is likely to be close to the 2006/07 total
35
Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee on the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill on behalf
67 of 397
this year’s submission that the vessel would be uneconomic under a reduced
TACC, and that there would be additional indirect losses arising from “selling
or decommissioning surplus vessels, plant capacity, and resultant
redundancies.” 36
114
c)
Anton’s submitted that, with respect to its vessels, the holding costs of laying
up the vessel would be in the region of $300,000 per annum, 37 and that the
world market for the 43 metre trawler Seamount Explorer is such that it would
be difficult to sell outright.
d)
Anton’s submitted that the international reputation of New Zealand fisheries
management system would be damaged by a TAC and TACC reduction.
e)
In an affidavit, the Managing Director of Anton’s stated that a cut in ORH 1 to
800 t would have “an impact on personnel in the processing sector but the
level of disruption is difficult to assess” but that it would be significant as one
third of Anton’s processed product is orange roughy. 38
f)
Anton’s submitted that an 800 t TACC “could well have a detrimental impact
on the bank’s assessments of the Anton’s group and on the bank’s view of the
fishing industry in general. Our initial assessment is that the cuts are of such a
magnitude that they are likely to put us in breach of at least two of our banking
covenants.” 39 The submission on the 2007 IPP did not comment on this
position.
In 2000/01, between the two AMP programmes, the TACC was set at 800 tonnes. For
that year, Anton’s advised that one of its two vessels was deployed to fish orange
roughy outside New Zealand’s 200 mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 40 The costs
of outside-EEZ fishing are high (due to fuel costs for transit), making it economically
less attractive than fishing closer to port. If Option 2 or 3 is selected, it is not apparent
that fishing vessels could fish economically outside the EEZ. In addition, you have
also recently announced that effective 30 September 2006:
a)
Bottom trawling in the high seas of the South Pacific must not exceed current
levels and must not expand into any new areas of the high seas
b)
Current bottom trawling activities may continue only if they can satisfy an
independently peer-reviewed process that they will not cause significant
adverse effects to vulnerable marine ecosystems such as seamounts,
hydrothermal vents, cold water corals and sponge fields.
The effect of this announcement is uncertain, but it at least raises the possibility that
high seas bottom trawling options for displaced ORH 1 companies may be reduced.
of the Anton’s Group of Companies. Submission dated 16 April 2007. Paragraph 66, p.13
36
EFC submission to the IPP, dated 31 July 2007, paragraph 10.1.
37
Affidavit of Milan Stephen John Barbarich in support of application for interim relief, filed in the High Court
of New Zealand, 22 September 2006, para 75, p 19.
38
Affidavit of Milan Stephen John Barbarich in support of application for interim relief, filed in the High Court
of New Zealand, 22 September 2006, para 74, p 18.
39
Affidavit of Milan Stephen John Barbarich in support of application for interim relief, filed in the High Court
of New Zealand, 22 September 2006, para 78, p 19-20.
40
Affidavit of Milan Stephen John Barbarich in support of application for interim relief, filed in the High Court
of New Zealand, 13 October 2006, para 20, p 6.
68 of 397
115
Sanford Limited, the other major quota holder, did not provide comment on the
current ORH 1 IPP. Sanford did provide a submission opposing the TAC and TACC
reduction last year, but it did not include an assessment of economic consequences.
116
In general, many of the costs in deepwater fisheries are more or less fixed – vessels,
shore-based facilities, overhead, etc. – and these are not easily or quickly scaled back
to respond to catch decreases. Although a lower TACC will reduce or eliminate some
variable costs – such as fuel, some labour, etc. – the general effect is that the decrease
in revenue (from fewer fish) usually well exceeds the decrease in costs. Irrespective
of the overall amounts, this means reduced profitability.
117
Based on available information, MFish’s assessment is that that the possible TACC
reductions would impose significant economic hardship on the majority quota owner.
118
ECO submits that economic considerations should not be focused on losses to
industry, but should include considerations of the annual loss in natural capital that
could be mitigated by a reduction in catch. MFish is unable to quantify such indirect
costs and believes these issues are better considered as part of the Minister’s
obligations to set a TAC and TACC at a sustainable level.
Social wellbeing and factors
119
Catch reductions can have social implications when employment opportunities for
catching and processing staff are reduced. The information MFish has on the impact
on employment that might arise from Options 2 and 3 is discussed under Economic
Factors.
120
There is no known recreational or customary fishing for orange roughy, and no
allowance has been provided to non-commercial extractive users. There is a broad
social benefit to New Zealand from the supply of orange roughy to the domestic
market, and there is a general public benefit from the maintenance of orange roughy
populations. Both of these issues are adequately addressed by maintaining a
sustainable fishery.
Cultural wellbeing and factors
121
MFish is not aware of any cultural factors relevant to these TAC or TACC decisions,
and no such factors have been raised by submitters.
International obligations and the Treaty of Waitangi (section 5)
122
Decision-makers are required to act in a manner consistent with New Zealand’s
international obligations relating to fishing, including the Law of the Sea and the Fish
Stocks agreement as well as regional fishery management agreements. Decisionmakers must also act in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. MFish considers that the proposed
options are consistent with both New Zealand’s international obligations relating to
fishing and the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
69 of 397
Environmental principles (section 9) and Effects on the aquatic
environment: section 11(1)(a)
123
You must take into account any effects of fishing on any stock and the aquatic
environment. You must also take into account the following principles:
a) Associated or dependent species should be maintained above a level that
ensures their long-term viability;
b) Biological diversity of the aquatic environment should be maintained;
c) Habitat of particular significance for fisheries management should be
protected.
124
ENGO submissions consider that environmental considerations have not been
adequately reflected, and that a precautionary and ecosystem approach is required.
125
The specific nature and extent of effects of ORH 1 fishing on any stock and the
environment generally are not known. While some bycatch of non-harvested species
is known, information is inadequate to determine the impact that fishing for ORH 1
might be having. Bycatch of corals has been raised as an issue in orange roughy
fisheries in New Zealand and this is addressed in the area closures within ORH 1
discussed below. No specific concerns have been raised at this time on issues which
would affect setting the TAC for ORH 1.
126
No habitats of particular significance for fisheries management that should be
protected are currently known.
Marine mammals
127
The available observer information indicates that incidental captures of marine
mammals do not occur in the ORH 1 target fishery. Therefore, the proposed options
are likely to have no adverse implications for marine mammals.
Seabirds
128
Although trawl fisheries for orange roughy are known to interact with seabirds, the
available observer information indicates that incidental captures of seabirds are
infrequent in the ORH 1 target fishery (three birds captured over ten years ago, all
landed on deck and released unharmed). Therefore, the proposed options are likely to
have no adverse implications for seabirds.
Fish bycatch
129
ECO submits that there is poor reporting of bycatch species which are not of
commercial interest. ECO raises deepwater sharks as an area of particular concern.
130
Orange roughy is one of several deepwater species that share similar ecological
habitats in the area of ORH 1. In the past, there has been significant ORH 1 bycatch
in alfonsino (BYX) target tows (100 tonnes in 2001/02); in the four most recent years,
this catch has dropped to an average of 4 tonnes per year. There has also been
substantial ORH 1 bycatch in the black cardinal fish (CDL) fishery (average of 82
tonnes over the past 5 years), in particular in sub-area D. For ORH 1 target tows,
70 of 397
CDL, rattails (RAT), and sharks and dogfish not otherwise specified (OSD) are the
most common bycatch. 41
131
Given the low level of bycatch of other species in ORH 1 target tows, and the low
level of ORH 1 bycatch in tows not targeting either ORH 1 or cardinal fish, the
proposed options are likely to have no adverse impacts on fish bycatch.
Benthic impacts and coral bycatch
132
While trawling can adversely affect fragile benthic invertebrate communities, the
commercial bycatch of benthic invertebrates is seldom recorded or examined.
Research has revealed marked differences in the bottom fauna of fished and unfished
seamounts off New Zealand and Tasmania, and those differences have been ascribed
to the impact of bottom trawling. 42,43 Researchers have reported anecdotal evidence
of bycatch of coral species in developing orange roughy fisheries in New Zealand.
133
Submissions from ENGOs point to concerns regarding the impacts of trawling on the
benthos in the new areas fished under the AMP. The submitters cite international
literature in support of evidence that trawling has adverse effects on the benthos and
the potential to reduce biodiversity. They submit that there is no proposal to mitigate
the adverse effects of fishing in the new areas.
134
MFish notes that the feature and sub-area catch limits proposed under all options
constrain trawling effort and serve to mitigate adverse effects of fishing at the feature
and sub-area spatial scales. At a broader scale, the effect of catch spreading may be to
shift effort into new areas, potentially increasing the extent of benthic impacts at the
QMA level. The proposed observer coverage provides for the collection of data that
could better inform the consideration of any effects of fishing.
135
ECO and RF&B submit that the seamount and Benthic Protection Area (BPA)
closures in ORH 1 do not meet the Fisheries Act of 1996 obligation to avoid, remedy,
or mitigate the impacts of fishing. ECO submits the Seamount Strategy is incomplete
and more seamounts should be closed to fishing. In addition, ECO believes the BPA
closures are unrepresentative of known seamount diversity in the ORH 1 area and a
further scientific assessment of the BPA proposals is required.
136
SeaFIC considers the existing seamount and regulatory closures in ORH 1 reflect a
precautionary approach to benthic protection. SeaFIC and TOKM note that 3.95% of
the currently fishable area 44 within ORH 1 is closed through seamount and BPA
closures, and an additional 3.23% of fishable area is closed to vessels longer than 46
m. In comparison, 0.17% of the fishable area was actually trawled from 2000-2006. 45
41
CDL, RAT and OSD each appear as having been taken in volumes greater than 7 tonnes in any one year from
all tows targeting ORH 1. A variety of other species have been reported in volumes less than 7 tonnes.
42
Anderson, O.F. and Clark, M.R. 2003 Analysis of bycatch in the fishery for orange roughy, Hoplostethus
atlanticus, on the South Tasman Rise. Marine and Freshwater Research, 2003, 54: 643-652.
43
Clark, M.R. and O’Driscoll, R. 2003 Deepwater fisheries and aspects of their impact on seamount habitat in
New Zealand. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., Vol.31: 441-458.
44
The area within the depth contours of 600 m to 1,200 m.
45
Calculation based on plotted trawl paths from 2000 to 2006, assuming a 10 m width.
71 of 397
137
MFish notes that nineteen seamounts of varying size and depth within New Zealand
waters have been closed to trawling, and six of these are within ORH 1. In addition,
the Norfolk Deep BPA is within ORH 1. There was virtually no fishing in the BPA or
any of the six seamounts closed through seamount closures. MFish therefore
considers that more than 51,600 km2 in six different areas of ORH 1 is or will soon be
closed to bottom trawling, and has for all intents and purposes never been trawled.
MFish also accepts that a very small percentage of the depth range in ORH 1 typically
inhabited by orange roughy has ever been targeted by orange roughy trawls.
138
These closures, and the limited extent of trawling in ORH 1, should therefore protect
faunas in a variety of habitats from the effects of fishing. In ORH 1, MFish considers
that the combined effect of the seamount closures and BPAs avoids, remedies, or
mitigates the impacts of fishing on seamounts generally – a position categorically
rejected by ECO or RFB. Research in this area is ongoing, and various policy
initiatives such as the Marine Protected Area Policy and the Benthic Impact Strategy,
will continue to review benthic impacts.
Information principles: section 10
139
MFish considers that the information used to support these proposals (catch data, the
opinion of the stock assessment working group for deepwater fisheries and MFish
scientists, the known biological characteristics of orange roughy, and socio-economic
information provided by stakeholders) is the best available information for ORH 1
stock (s 10(a)). MFish is not aware of any other information related to the status of
the stock that could be made available without unreasonable cost, effort, or time.
140
The FAP advises on how uncertainty might be considered, and how caution might be
exercised (s 10(b) and (c)). In progressing the advice process, no postponement is
being made as a result of absent or uncertain information (s 10(d)).
Existing controls that apply to the stock: section 11(1)(b)
141
Before varying the TAC for ORH 1, you must take into account any existing controls
that apply to the stock. For ORH 1, the measures that apply currently are a TAC,
TACC and an allowance for incidental fishing-related mortality. No other controls
under the Act apply specifically to ORH 1. The effect of the seamount closures and
the BPA is discussed at paragraph 133.
Natural variability of the stock: section 11(1)(c)
142
Before varying the TAC for ORH 1, you must take into account the natural variability
of the stock. Best available information is that orange roughy are not highly variable,
and therefore the natural variability of orange roughy is not a concern in setting the
ORH 1 TAC.
Resource Management Act 1991: section 11(2)(a)
143
Before varying the TAC for ORH 1, you must have regard to any provisions of any
policy statement or plan under the Resource Management Act 1991 that apply to the
coastal marine area and you consider to be relevant. MFish is not aware of any
72 of 397
relevant policy statements or (proposed) regional plans, under the Resource
Management Act 1991 relevant to ORH 1.
Conservation Act 1987: section 11(2)(b)
144
Before varying the TAC for ORH 1, you must have regard to any provisions or any
management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1987 that apply to the
coastal marine area and you consider to be relevant. MFish is not aware of any
relevant management strategies or plans under the Conservation Act 1987 for ORH 1.
Hauraki Marine Park Act 2000: section 11(2)(c)
145
Before varying the TAC for ORH 1, you must have regard to ss 7 and 8 of the
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 that apply to the coastal marine area and you
consider relevant. Although the ORH 1 quota management area encompasses the
waters of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, the distribution of orange roughy and the
fishery for it do not intersect with the Park boundaries. Therefore MFish considers
there are no relevant concerns regarding sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine
Park Act 2000 in considering the ORH 1 TAC.
Conservation services, fisheries services and fisheries plans: 11(2A)
146
Before varying the TAC for ORH 1, you must take into account any conservation or
fisheries services, any relevant fisheries plans approved under the Act, and any
decisions not to require conservation or fisheries services. MFish does not consider
that existing or proposed conservation or fisheries services materially affect the
proposed TAC options. There is no approved fisheries plan for ORH 1.
Setting or varying the TACC: section 20 and 21
147
As noted above, there is no known recreational or Mäori customary fishery for ORH
1. MFish proposes that you set allowances of 0 tonnes for recreational and Mäori
customary fishing under this option – consistent with the status quo that has existed
since orange roughy became a QMS species in 1986. MFish proposes that the current
allowance for other sources of fishing-related mortality be retained at 5% of the
TACC, and is combined with the TACC to make up the TAC.
148
Section 21(4) requires that any mätaitai reserve or closure/restriction under s 186A to
facilitate customary fishing be taken into account. There is one mätaitai reserve, three
taiapure and two s 186A closure in ORH 1, 46 but none intersect with the ORH 1
fishery. No area has been closed or fishing method restricted (that affects the fishery
within ORH 1) under the customary fishing provisions of the Act.
149
Section 21(5) also requires that any regulations to prohibit fishing made under s 311
be taken into account when setting allowances for recreational interests. No
restrictions under s 311 have been placed on fishing in any area within ORH 1.
46
Raukokore Mataitai, Kawhia Aotea Taiapure, Maketu Taiapure, Waikare Inlet Taiapure, Ohiwa Harbour
Temporary Closure, Mt Maunganui Temporary Closure (Green-lipped Mussels).
73 of 397
APPENDIX 1 – 2007 ORH 1 PLENARY REPORT
ORANGE ROUGHY NORTHERN NORTH ISLAND (ORH 1)
1.
FISHERY SUMMARY
(a)
Commercial fisheries
This region extends northwards from west of Wellington around to Cape Runaway. Prior to 1993–94 there
was no established fishery, and reported landings were generally small (Table 1). A new fishery developed
in winter 1994, when aggregations were fished on two hill complexes in the western Bay of Plenty. In 1996
catches were also taken off the west coast of Northland.
A TACC of 190 t was set from 1989–90. Prior to that there had been a 10 t TAC and various levels of
exploratory quota. From 1995–96, ORH 1 became subject to a five year adaptive management programme,
and the TACC was increased to 1190 t. A catch limit of 1000 t was applied to an area in the western Bay of
Plenty (Mercury-Colville ‘box’), with the former 190 t TACC applicable to the remainder of ORH 1. In
1994 and 1995, research fishing was also carried out under Special Permit (not included in the TACC). For
the period June 1996-June 1997, a Special Permit was approved for exploratory fishing. This allowed an
additional 800 t (not included in the TACC) to be taken in designated areas, although catches were limited
from individual features (hills and seamounts etc).
Table 1: Reported landings (t) and TACs (t) from 1982–83 to 2005–06. – no TAC. The reported landings do not include catches
taken under an exploratory special permit of 699 t in 1998–99 and 704 t in 1999–00.
Reported landings
Fishing year
West coast North–east coast
1982–83*
< 0.1
1983–84*
0.1
1984–85*
< 0.1
1985–86*
<1
1986–87*
0
1987–88†
0
1988–89†
0
1989–90†
37
1990–91†
0
1991–92†
+
1992–93†
+
1993–94†
0
1994–95†
0
1995–96†
55
1996–97†
+
1997–98†
+
1998–99†
+
1999–00†
+
2000–01†
+
2001–02†
+
2002–03†
+
2003–04†
+
2004–05†
+
2005–06†
+
* FSU data.
† QMS data.
+ Unknown distribution of catch.
0
0
96
2
< 0.1
0
19
49
200
+
+
189
244
910
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Total
TAC
< 0.1
0.1
96
2
< 0.1
0
19
86
200
112
49
189
244
965
1021
511
845
771
858
1294
1123
986
1 151
1 207
–
–
–
–
10
10
10
190
190
190
190
190
190
1190
1190
1190
1190
1190
800
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
Reported catches have varied considerably between years, and the location of the catch in the late
1980s/early 1990s is uncertain, as some may have been taken from outside the EEZ, as well as misreported
from other areas. Research fishing carried out under Special Permit in 1994 and 1995 resulted in catches of
45.2 t and 200.7 t, respectively (not included in Table 1).
Based on an evaluation of the results of an Adaptive Management Programme (AMP) for the MercuryColville box initiated in 1995, the AMP was concluded and the TACC was reduced to 800 t for the 2000–01
fishing year. Catch limits of 200 t were established in each of four areas in ORH 1, with an individual
seamount feature limit of 100 t. From 1 October 2001, ORH 1 was reintroduced into the AMP with different
design parameters for five years, and the TACC was increased from 800 to 1400 t.
In recent years the fishery has also developed off the west coast and sizeable catches have been taken off the
Tauroa Knoll and West Norfolk Ridge. The current management of the fishery is described in section 4
(Analysis of adaptive management programme) with a 2007 review of the performance of the AMP.
2005-06 Fishery (Anderson 2007)
The pattern of catch and effort in 2005–06 was different to 2004–05 in several areas. While most fishing
again took place within the main recognised fishing regions, the distribution of catches amongst and within
these regions was quite different. Effort and catches in the Northland fishery were greater than in 2004–05
with several large catches in the southwest of this area. The several good catches reported from North
Colville in 2004–05 were not repeated in 2005–06, with almost no effort or catch in this fishery. Catch sizes
were also much smaller in Manukau in 2005–06, although they were from approximately the same positions.
Elsewhere, in the West Norfolk Ridge and Bay of Plenty fisheries, the pattern of fishing between the two
years was much the same. The focus of catch and effort in the West Norfolk Ridge continues to be in the
northwest, close to the limits of the EEZ.
Following the exploratory development of the fishing grounds through the mid–late 1990s, large annual
catches have been reported regularly from Tauroa Knoll, the West Norfolk Ridge, and the north Colville
Ridge. Catches on Tauroa Knoll increased from a relatively low level in 2004–05 to be similar in 2005–06 to
the level of the three years prior to 2004–05. Catches and catch rates in the West Norfolk Ridge fishery
peaked at about 350 t in 2001–02, and since then have remained steady at a level of 150–250 t. The catch in
2005–06 in this fishery was similar to recent years, but with relatively low effort and a high overall catch
rate. Despite double the effort of any previous year, catches were down in the Manukau fishery, and the
catch rate fell below 1 t per tow for the first time. Newly developed grounds in the Northland fishery
provided a boost to the catches and catch rate in this fishery, the catch of 332 t being more than three times
that of any previous year, and the catch rate almost double the previous high of 1.5 t/tow recorded in 1997–
98. Effort was relatively low in the North Colville, Mercury-Colville, and Aldermen fisheries, with only 30
orange roughy target tows in total for these areas. Catches in the White Is. fishery have fluctuated over time
and the 74 t caught in 2005–06 is slightly below the median level of the nine years of this fishery, although
the 3.7 t/tow catch rate is the highest recorded.
The catch limit for the Mercury–Colville Box was reduced to 30 t in 2000–01, and although catches and
effort increased in 2001–02, well beyond this catch limit, catches have been closer to this limit since 2002–
03. Only in 2003–04 was this 30 t limit not exceeded. Within the Mercury-Colville Box, on Colville Knoll,
only about 9 t were caught from 25 tows in 2005–06 (the 13 ORH target tows caught only 50 kg, the
remainder being caught as bycatch from cardinalfish fishing). Catch rates were better on Mercury Knoll,
where 29 t were caught from 18 tows.
(b)
Recreational fisheries
There is no known non–commercial fishery for orange roughy in this area.
(c)
Maori customary fisheries
No Maori customary fishing for orange roughy is known in this area.
Page 75 of 397
(d)
Illegal catch
No quantitative information is available on the level of illegal catch in this area.
(e)
Other sources of mortality
There may be some overrun of reported catch because of fish loss with trawl gear damage and ripped nets. In
other orange roughy fisheries, a level of 5% has been estimated.
2.
STOCKS AND AREAS
Orange roughy are distributed throughout the area. Spawning is known from hills in the western Bay of
Plenty. Stock status/affinities within the QMA are unknown. The Mercury-Colville grounds in the Bay of
Plenty are about 120 n.miles from fishing grounds at East Cape (ORH 2A North), and spawning occurs at a
similar time. Hence, it is likely that these are separate stocks. The Mercury and Colville Knolls in the Bay of
Plenty are about 25 miles apart and may form a single stock. Stock affinities with other fishing hills in the
southern and central Bay of Plenty are unknown. The Tauroa Knoll and outer Colville Ridge seamounts are
distant from other commercial grounds, and these fish may also represent separate stocks.
3.
STOCK ASSESSMENT
An assessment for the Mercury-Colville box was carried out in 2001 and is repeated here. A deterministic
stock reduction technique (after Francis 1990) was used to estimate virgin biomass (B0) and current biomass
(Bcurr) for the Mercury-Colville orange roughy stock. The model was fitted to the biomass indices using
maximum likelihood and assuming normal errors. In common with other orange roughy assessments, the
maximum exploitation rate was set at 0.67. The model treats sexes separately, and assumes a Beverton-Holt
stock-recruit relationship. Confidence intervals of the biomass estimates were derived from bootstrap
analysis (Cordue & Francis 1994).
(a)
Estimates of fishery parameters and abundance
A series of trawl surveys of the Mercury-Colville box to estimate relative abundance were agreed under an
Adaptive Management Programme. The first survey was carried out in June 1995 with a second survey in
winter 1998 (Table 2). The biomass index of the latter survey was much lower than 1995, and it was
uncertain whether the 1998 results were directly comparable to the 1995 results because of warmer water
temperatures. They were not incorporated in the decision rule for the adaptive management programme. A
third survey was carried out in June 2000, with the results suggesting that the abundance of orange roughy in
the box had decreased considerably and was at low levels. However, these estimates are uncertain because of
the suggestion that environmental factors may have influenced the distribution of orange roughy. The
abundance indices from trawl survey and commercial catch-effort data used in the assessment are given in
Table 2. The trawl survey indices had c.v.’s of 0.27, 0.39 and 0.29 for 1995, 1998, and 2000 respectively.
Table 2:
Year
Trawl survey
CPUE
Catch (t)
Biomass indices and reported catch used in estimation of B0. Values in square brackets are included for
completeness; they are not used in the assessment.
1993–4
–
8.3
230
1994–95
76 200
9.1
440
1995–96
–
5.4
915
1996–97
–
4.2
895
1997–98
[2 500]
[0.5]
295
1998–99
–
1.5
140
1999–00
3 800
(2.0)
250
The CPUE series is mean catch per tow (sum of catches divided by number of tows, target ORH) from
Mercury Knoll in the month of June. This is the only month when adequate data exist from the fishery to
compare over time. A c.v. of 0.30 was assigned to the CPUE data.
Catch history information is derived from TCEPR records, scaled to the reported total catch for ORH 1.
Figures differ slightly from unscaled data summarised by Clark (1999), but this would make little difference
to the assessment. Overrun of reported catch (e.g., burst bags, inappropriate conversion factors) was
assumed to be zero, as even if there was some, it is likely that it was similar between years. The catch in
Page 76 of 397
1999–00 was assumed to be 250 t.
Assessments were carried out for three alternative sets of biomass indices (Table 3).
Table 3:
Three alternative sets of biomass indices used in the stock assessment.
Alternative
1
2
3
Trawl survey indices
1995, 2000
1995, 2000
1995, 2000
CPUE indices
All except 1998
None
All except 1998
and 2000
Biological parameters used are those for the Chatham Rise stock, except for specific Bay of Plenty values
for the maturity and recruitment ogives (Annala et al., 2000).
(b)
Biomass estimates
The estimated virgin biomass (B0) is very similar for all three alternative assessments (Table 4). With
alternative 1 the estimated B0 is 3200 t, with a current biomass of 15% B0. For both alternatives 2 and 3, the
estimated B0 is 3000 t, which is Bmin, the minimum stock size which enables the catch history to be taken
given a maximum exploitation rate of 0.67.
Table 4:
Biomass
B0 (t)
BMSY (t)
Bcurrent (t)
Bcurrent (%B0)
Bbeg (t)
Biomass estimates (with 95% confidence intervals in parentheses) for stock assessments with the three
alternatives of Table 3. B0 is virgin biomass; BMSY is interpreted as BMAY, which is 30%B0; Bcurrent is mid-season
1999–00; and Bbeg is the biomass at the beginning of the 2000–01 fishing year. Estimates are rounded to the
nearest 100 t (for B0), 10 t (for other biomasses), or 1%.
3200
960
490
15
480
Alternative 1
(3000, 3600)
(900, 1080)
(290, 890)
(10, 25)
(270, 900)
3000
900
290
10
270
Alternative 2
(3000, 3500)
(900, 1050)
(290, 790)
(10, 23)
(270, 800)
3000
900
290
10
270
Alternative 3
(3000, 3300)
(900, 990)
(290, 590)
(10, 18)
(270, 590)
The model fits the CPUE data reasonably well but estimates a smaller decline than is implied by the two
trawl survey indices.
(c)
Estimates of Yield
Yield estimates were determined using the simulation method described by Francis (1992) and the relative
estimates of MCY, ECAY and MAY, as given by Annala et al. (2000).
Yield estimates are all much lower than recent catches (Table 5). Estimates of current yields (MCYcurrent and
CAY) lie between 16 t and 35 t; long-term yields (MCYlong-term and MAY) lie between 44 t and 67 t.
Table 5:
Yield
MCYcurrent
MCYlong-term
CAY
MAY
Yield estimates (t) for stock assessments with the three alternatives of Table 3.
Alternative 1
35
(22,53)
47
(44,53)
29
(16,54)
67
(58,70)
Alternative 2
22
(22,51)
44
(44,51)
16
(16,48)
58
(58,68)
Alternative 3
22
(22,44)
44
(44,49)
16
(16,36)
58
(58,64)
CSP for this stock is just under 100 t for any B0 between 3000 t and 3600 t.
4.
ANALYSIS OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
The ORH 1 TACC was increased from 800 to 1400 t in October 2001/02 under the Adaptive Management Programme. The objectives of this AMP
were to determine stock size, geographical extent, and long-term sustainable yield of the ORH 1 stock. This is a complex AMP, with ORH 1 divided
into four sub-areas (see Figure 1), each with total catch and “feature” catch limits (a “feature” was defined as being within a 10 nm radius of the
shallowest point).
Page 77 of 397
ORH 1 Subarea
Area B
Area C
Area D
Proposed Catch Limit
200 t
Feature Limit
(t/fishing year)
100 t
500 t
500 t
200 t
150 t
150 t
75 t
Feature limits also serve as limits to the total catch in any area due to the limited number of available productive features. The Mercury-Colville
“Box” (located within Area D) has been given a specific limit of 30 t per year to allow for the bycatch of orange roughy when fishing for black
cardinalfish. The catch of orange roughy in the Mercury-Colville “Box” is included in the overall limit for Area D.
Figure 1.
Four sub-management areas for the ORH 1 AMP (labelled A-D). Dotted lines enclose the exploratory fishing areas
defined in the special permit issued on 6 July 1998. Solid lines enclose seamount closures and the Mercury-Colville
Ohena ‘box’ (labelled at their top). Trawls (dots) where orange roughy were reported as the target species and caught
during 1997–98 and 1998–99 are shown. Note that the lines separating Areas A and D from Areas B and C are incorrectly
drawn at 36° S latitude rather than 35°30’ S latitude.
Review of ORH 1 AMP in 2007
In 2007 the AMP FAWG reviewed the performance of the AMP after the full 5-year term.
Fishery Characterisation
• In most years, the total catch has been less than the TACC.
• The area splits into A, B, C and D only occurred in 2001.
• Main fishery is in area B; the fishery in area A only began in 2002.
• Two main goals of the AMP:
o Reduce fishing in area D, in particular the Mercury-Colville “box”.
o Look for new fishing areas, distributing effort across the QMA, with feature limits to
reduce the possibility of localised overfishing
Page 78 of 397
Table 6: Estimated target catches by sub-area , reported landings and TACC for ORH 1.
1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
A
0.5
5
1
9
123
197
223
277
B
6
575
645
166
441
508
422
390
Sub-area target catch (t)
C
D
0
491
165
725
165
598
99
165
266
227
238
72
117
110
173
174
Total target
catch(t)
497
1470
1408
439
1056
1015
872
1014
Reported TACC
landings (t)
(t)
511
1190
1543
1190
1476
1190
858
800
1294
1400
1123 `1400
986
1400
1151
1400
CPUE Analysis
• Unstandardised CPUE is in kg/tow. The short time series, the nature of the fishery (fishing aggregations
spread over a wide area in different seasons) and the impact of catch limits on features and sub-areas
prevent any useful relative abundance indices from being developed at this point for ORH 1.
• Where features are less than 10 nm apart, catch is apportioned according to the distance to the feature.
Industry in-season reporting is based on the feature closest to the start of the tow.
• Possible problems with the area A observations in 2005-06, as there seem to be more reported tows than
expected given the number of vessels operating in the area.
Observer Programme
• 50% observer coverage prior to 1 October 2006 (a high level relative to that for other deepwater stocks,
with a large number of samples taken relative to the size of the fishery). From 1 October 2006, 100%
coverage was requested by the Minister, but this has not been fully achieved, as some ORH 1 is taken as
bycatch on trips that do not predominantly target ORH.
• The size frequency data show high levels of stock variability between fisheries on features or feature
groups. Size variation does not seem to be linked to exploitation rate.
Environmental Effects
• Observer data from 2000 to 2003 indicated that incidental captures of seabirds did not occur in the ORH
1 target fishery (Baird 2005). Marine mammal interactions are also not .a problem.
• Only 3 non-fish bycatch records have been reported from observed trips (in 1994 and 1995). All were
shearwaters that landed on deck and were released alive. It was verified that observers were briefed in
the same way as for other MFish trips including recording non-fish bycatch i.e. seabirds and marine
mammals. Note that this does not include benthic organisms.
• The overall impact of bottom trawling on seamounts in ORH1 is not known. A number of seamounts
have been closed to fishing and the Norfolk Deep BPA is included in the industry accord relating to
benthic protection areas within New Zealand's EEZ.
Sub-area D Directed Adaptive Exploratory Fishing Programme
• The purpose of this exercise was to establish whether fish populations shift between features in different
years in sub-area D.
• Based on the results from the exploratory fishing from 2002 to 2005 it is evident that catches from all
features contained a high proportion of ripe or ripe running females and that synchronised spawning occurs
on a range of hills during winter.
• In 2006 the AMP Working Group recommended some changes to the design of the exploratory survey;
however, this was not achieved during the 2006 survey.
The abbreviated checklist questions for full- and mid-term reviews are:
1. Is stock abundance adequately monitored?
The working group concluded that CPUE does not seem to be a proportional measure of abundance
for this stock. However, CPUE is used in ORH 1 as a management tool. When CPUE drops on a
feature, fishers are meant to move to another feature.
Page 79 of 397
2. Is logbook coverage sufficient?
As there are MFish observers on these vessels, fishers are not required to complete detailed
logbooks for the AMP. This is the highest level of monitoring of any ORH fishery in New Zealand.
3. Are additional analyses of current data necessary?
No. The Working Group concluded that no other information can currently be extracted from the
existing data that will provide insight into the status of the ORH 1 stocks. However, a potential
problem with the 2005-06 catch records from Area A still needs to be checked.
4. Based on the biomass index, is current harvest sustainable?
Unknown. The purpose of the AMP was to spread effort in an attempt to reduce fishing pressure on
any one sub-area or feature (and Area D in particular). ORH 1 is a large area, with orange roughy
aggregations spread across a number of areas and features. The amount of fishing in some areas
appears to be low, but without any indication of current abundance, there is no way to determine if
this level of fishing is in fact sustainable, or if current feature limits will avoid overexploitation of
localised areas.
5. Where is stock, based on weight of evidence, in relation to Bmsy?
Unknown. In 2001, when the AMP was initiated, the Working Group stated that the stock was
likely above BMSY; while the information collected since that time has not improved the
understanding about the status of the stock, the intent of the AMP design for ORH1 was to spread
effort to reduce the likelihood of the biomass declining below BMSY.
ORH 1 is unlikely to be a single biological stock, and probably includes a number of constituent
stocks. The Working Group concluded that it is not possible to estimate BMSY for any of the
individual stocks, let alone aggregate up to an estimate for ORH 1 as a whole. Moreover, a better
understanding is not possible in the near future. BMSY is difficult to estimate in situations involving
an unknown number of constituent stocks.
6. Are the effects of fishing adequately monitored?
Yes, there is good observer coverage. The Working Group noted that one consequence of
deliberately spreading effort was to increase the possible benthic impact.
7. Are rates of non-fish bycatch acceptable?
Yes.
8. Should the AMP be reviewed by the plenary?
This AMP does not need to be reviewed by the Plenary.
5.
STATUS OF THE STOCKS
From 1 October 2001, the TACC for ORH 1 was increased to 1400 t within the AMP, with sub-area and
feature limits. In most years the total catch has been less than the TACC. However, it is not known if recent
catch levels or current TACCs are sustainable in the long term. Except for the small area of the MercuryColville box no assessment of stock status is currently available.
An assessment of the Mercury-Colville box in 2001 indicated that biomass had been reduced to 10-15% B0
(compared to an assumed BMSY of 30% B0). As the stock was considered to be well below BMSY, a catch limit
of 30 t was set for the box. The assessment indicated that a catch level of about 100 t would probably
maintain the stock at the 2000 stock size (assuming deterministic recruitment) and catch levels from 16 to 35
t (consistent with CAY or MCY strategies) might allow the stock to rebuild slowly.
In other areas of ORH 1 the status of the constituent stocks is unknown. The amount of fishing in some areas
appears to be low, but without any indication of current abundance, there is no way to determine if this level
of fishing is in fact sustainable or if current feature limits will avoid overexploitation of localised areas.
Page 80 of 397
6.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Anderson, O.F. (2007). Descriptive analysis of catch and effort data from New Zealand orange roughy fisheries in ORH
1 to the end of the 2005–06 fishing year.. Deepwater-WG-07/39. 11p
Anderson, O.F.; Dunn, M.R. (2006). Descriptive analysis of catch and effort data from New Zealand orange roughy
fisheries in ORH 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, and 7B to the end of the 2003–04 fishing year. New Zealand Fisheries
Assessment Report 2006/20. 59p
Annala, J.H.; Sullivan, K.J.; O’Brien, C.J. (2000). Report from the Fishery Assessment Plenary, May 2000: stock
assessments and yield estimates. (unpublished report held in NIWA library, Wellington.)
Baird, S.J. (2005a). Incidental capture of seabird species in commercial fisheries in New Zealand waters, 2002–03. New
Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2005/2. 50 p.
Clark, M.R. (2001). A description of the orange roughy fishery in northern North Island waters (ORH 1) for 1997–98 to
1999–2000: an update of commercial catch and effort information. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report
2001/76. 23 p.
Clark, M.R.; Tracey, D.M. (1988). Assessment of the west coast South Island and northern North Island orange roughy
fisheries. N.Z. Fisheries Assessment Research Document 88/20. 11 p.
Clark, M.R.; King, K.J. (1989). Deepwater fish resources off the North Island, New Zealand: results of a trawl survey,
May 1985 to June 1986. N.Z. Fisheries Technical Report No. 11. 56 p.
Clark, M.R.; Field, K.D. (1998). Distribution, abundance and biology of orange roughy in the western Bay of Plenty:
results of a trawl survey, June 1995 (SMT9501). NIWA Technical Report 14. 29 p.
Cordue, P.L.; Francis, R.I.C.C. (1994). Accuracy and choice in risk estimation for fisheries assessment. Canadian
journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 817–829.
Francis, R.I.C.C. (1990). A maximum likelihood stock reduction method. N.Z. Fisheries Assessment Research
Document 90/4. 8 p.
Francis, R.I.C.C. (1992). Recommendations concerning the calculation of maximum constant yield (MCY) and current
annual yield (CAY). N.Z. Fisheries Assessment Research Document 92/8. 27 p.
SeaFIC (2006). 2006 Report to the Adaptive Management Programme Fishery Assessment Working Group:Full Term
Review of the ORH1 Adaptive Assessment Programme. AMP-WG-06Starr, P.; Clark, M.R.; Francis, R.I.C.C. (1996). ORH 1: blueprint for controlled development of an orange roughy
fishery? Seafood New Zealand 4(2): 29–31.
Page 81 of 397
APPENDIX 2 – ORANGE ROUGHY CHARACTERISTICS
150
151
The unique characteristics of orange roughy give rise to fisheries management
considerations that differ from many other species. Key biological features and issues for
consideration by fisheries managers, especially with regard to managing new fisheries for
orange roughy, were summarised by Annala et al. (2005): 47
•
Because of their low productivity, sustainable yields from orange roughy fisheries are
estimated to be low, at an annual rate of 1 to 2 percent of the virgin biomass (B0), and 4
to 6 percent of the biomass that will produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY);
•
The aggregating behaviour of orange roughy, particularly on undersea hill features and
during spawning seasons, makes it easy to overestimate the unfished biomass;
•
The major scientific challenges have been to obtain reliable estimates of orange roughy
life history parameters and stock size in order to estimate the yields appropriate to move
the stocks from B0 to BMSY;
•
It is difficult to accurately specify a time stream of future catches and catch limits that
will result in an orderly fishing-down phase to achieve target biomass. In New Zealand,
these stock assessment difficulties have resulted in stocks falling below BMSY in 7 of the
9 orange roughy fisheries for which quantitative stock assessments have been
conducted, and the subsequent need to rebuild stocks back to BMSY;
•
Initial high catch rates lasted only a few years in most fisheries, to be followed by sharp
declines, and the serial depletion of hill features has been observed;
•
The challenge is to use information on possible stock size and our knowledge about the
low productivity of the species to devise an orderly fish-down strategy that satisfies both
the desire for high initial catch levels and the need to ensure that the target biomass level
is not exceeded.
Orange roughy are widely distributed within New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone and
elsewhere, with a number of genetically distinct stocks. There are likely to be several
distinct biological stocks within the area of ORH 1.
47
Annala, J., M. Clark, G. Clement, and J. Cornelius 2005. Management of New Zealand orange roughy fisheries – a
deep learning curve. In FAO Fisheries Proceedings No. 3/1, Deep Sea 2003: Conference on the Governance and
Management of Deep-sea Fisheries. (Ed. R. Shotton). FAO, Rome.
Page 82 of 397
APPENDIX 3: DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF
THE ORH 1 FISHERY
152
The development of the ORH 1 fishery lagged considerably behind that of other New
Zealand orange roughy fisheries. ORH 1 was introduced into the quota management system
(QMS) in 1986 under a TACC of 10 tonnes, when effort in this area was very low. The
TACC was increased to 190 tonnes from 1989−90. Initial orange roughy catches in ORH 1
came from the Bay of Plenty in the mid-1980s. It was not until the mid 1990s that relatively
large quantities of orange roughy were found to aggregate around the Mercury-Colville
seamount features in the centre of the Bay of Plenty.
153
A trawl survey in the winter of 1995 estimated the biomass in the Mercury-Colville area at
78 000 tonnes. In response, a five-year AMP was initiated for ORH 1 as from the 1995−96
year. The AMP framework allows the TAC for low knowledge stocks to be set higher than
would otherwise be the case, as long as, on the balance of probabilities, the TAC would
move the stock towards the BMSY level over the duration of the AMP.
154
The AMP framework relies on the collection of more information from the fishery than
otherwise available, in order to assess and manage risks associated with the increased TAC.
The TACC for ORH 1 was set at 1 190 tonnes under an AMP, with a catch limit of 1 000
tonnes applying to the Mercury-Colville ‘box’ area, and the previous TACC of 190 tonnes
applying to the remainder of the ORH 1 QMA. In addition, research and exploratory
fishing was undertaken under special permits between 1994 and 1997, which allowed up to
800 tonnes catch each fishing year in designated areas of ORH 1 and with feature limits
applied.
155
The Mercury-Colville knoll fishery persisted near the 1 000 tonne level for two years, after
which catches declined. Additional survey work was carried out in the area of the MercuryColville knoll in 1998 and 2000; the results indicated a much lower estimate of between 2
500 and 3 800 tonnes. The fishing pressure could not have been sufficient to result in this
decline, and it was proposed that the decline could be a result of oceanographic conditions
or movement of orange roughy between areas. Based on the available information, the
AMP was concluded and the TACC was reduced to 800 tonnes for 2000−01. For that year,
the Minister requested industry to implement a structured fishing plan with catch limits of
200 tonnes for each of four sub-areas within ORH 1, and individual feature limits of 100
tonnes to ensure the TAC was sustainable.
156
A second ORH 1 AMP was implemented on 1 October 2001, with the objective of
determining stock size, geographical extent, and long term sustainable yield, of the various
features and sub-areas of the ORH 1 quota management area (QMA). In order to facilitate
the objectives of the AMP and encourage fishing over a wide area, the TACC for ORH 1
was increased from 800 to 1 400 tonnes for five years under the AMP framework (as
described in the Revised Framework for the Adaptive Management Program 48).
157
Criteria for approval of AMPs under the revised framework and stakeholder undertakings of
particular relevance are that:
48
The Revised Framework for the Adaptive Management Program dated March 2004 is available on request from
MFish.
Page 83 of 397
•
Increased TACs can be agreed where there is reasonable probability that current
biomass exceeds the BMSY level and that the TAC is likely to move the stock
towards, or keep it at or above, that level over the five years of the AMP;
•
The increased TAC is not for an indefinite period and efforts have to be made to
improve the understanding of stock status and yield;
•
There is scope to consider ongoing management of a stock at the conclusion of the
AMP in the absence of an assessment of stock status and estimation of yield, but
such ongoing management would require that stakeholders continue to collect the
same level of information (under a longer-term plan) as under the AMP in order to
justify retaining the increased TAC – however, this would require that there would
be ongoing monitoring of changes in stock status and agreement that the TAC is
sustainable;
•
There is an ‘onus on industry to either fulfil their commitments or face a reversal of
the TACC increase’; and
•
Stakeholders accept the responsibility to work cooperatively to meet the AMP
criteria, ‘otherwise the Minister of Fisheries will reduce the TACC to a level that he
determines will ensure sustainability with no information’.
158
Controls and monitoring measures aimed at ensuring sustainability and encouraging
exploration included voluntary catch limits by sub-area and undersea ‘feature’, as well as
decision rules relating to progressive reductions of catch limits that would be triggered by
reductions in CPUE. A critical element of the AMP was the use of CPUE to monitor
relative abundance, both for increasing information on abundance (and distribution)
generally, and for managing sustainability risks or risks of localised depletion.
159
Monitoring requirements of the AMP included a high level of scientific observer coverage
to collect biological information on ORH as well as the weight and number of all species of
fish and invertebrates caught. The AMP also undertakes to complete annual ‘directed
exploratory fishing surveys’ in the Bay of Plenty to determine the extent of spawning
grounds in the area.
160
In agreeing to the current AMP proposal, the Minister specifically requested that industry
develop and implement a compliance and monitoring plan that would be in place before
fishing began for the 2001-02 fishing year. The ORH 1 Exploratory Fishing Company
subsequently produced the ‘Management and Monitoring Plan’ 49 that set out quota owners’
undertakings in the conduct of the AMP. The company also produced a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) to bind industry participants to the ‘rules’ under the AMP.
161
Both the AMP WG and the Minister have raised concerns about the operation of the AMP
on more than one occasion. Concerns focused on industry governance where agreed subarea and feature catch limits have been exceeded, and the desired scientific observer
coverage levels in 2001−02 and 2002−03 were not achieved. Those matters were of
concern because exceeding the agreed sub-area and feature limits increased concerns over
unknown sustainability risks, given the uncertainty of information underpinning those
management measures. In addition, failing to achieve the desired level of scientific
49
The Management and Monitoring Plan and MoU were prepared by the ORH 1 Exploratory Fishing Company, and
are available on request from MFish.
Page 84 of 397
observer coverage could reduce the value of biological data collected about orange roughy
and about any adverse effects of fishing under the AMP.
162
As a result of his concerns at the time, the Minister directed MFish to review the AMP at
the end of the 2003−04 fishing year. The Minister noted that he would withdraw the AMP
if additional measures were not undertaken by industry to address governance problems and
affirm their commitment to adhere to sub-area and feature limits. The Minister required the
development and acceptance by stakeholders of an industry MoU designed to address
governance problems.
163
In March 2004, industry signed the MoU commitment. Since then some sub-area and
feature limits have continued to be exceeded. Monthly reporting has generally been
reliable, although some reports have been delayed.
Page 85 of 397
APPENDIX 4 – SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS
Option 1
Costs
Benefits
• Greater risk that fishing exploitation leads
to stock biomass below BMSY in the future
• Ongoing utilisation at current level:
landed value of approximately $4.2
million, or approximately $6.3 million
export value, if TACC fully caught
• Possible depletion of individual features
• Continued management under an industrydriven structured fishing plan, although
efficacy of this plan not fully tested
• In the case of over-exploitation, forgone
future utilisation
• Continued collection of data
Option 2
Costs
Benefits
•
If TACC was fully caught, potential
immediate landed value loss of
approximately $750,000, or
approximately $1.13 million export
value. Losses are not as great if average
catches over past five years are used.
• Lower overall exploitation rate across the
stock, which means increased certainty
over the long-term sustainability, and
long-term sustainable utilisation, of ORH
1 compared to Option 1.
•
Possibly the Anton’s Group will no
longer be commercially viable.
• Possible reduced environmental impact
should effort be reduced
•
Unknown number of vessel and shorebased staff layoffs.
•
Continued management under an
industry-driven structured fishing plan,
although efficacy of this plan not fully
tested.
•
Possible costs incurred to lay up or sell a
vessel.
•
Utilisation: landed value of
approximately $3.4 million, or
approximately $5.2 million export value,
if TACC fully caught.
•
Unknown ability to manage an industryled fishing plan at a reduced TACC.
•
If the catch in sub-area C matches the
average of the past five years, then
Option 2b results in no loss in landed
value or export value. Note that catch in
2005/06 and 2006/07 were well above the
five-year average.
•
Possibly less biological information
Page 86 of 397
collected.
Option 3
Costs
Benefits
•
Immediate gross revenue loss greater
than Option 2. If TACC was fully
caught, potential immediate landed value
loss of approximately $1.6 million, or
approximately $2.4 million export value.
Losses are not as great if average catches
over past five years are used.
• Lowest overall exploitation rate across
the stock, which means the greatest
certainty of the three options of the longterm sustainability, and long-term
sustainable utilisation, of ORH 1.
•
Possibly the Anton’s Group will no
longer be commercially viable.
• Possible reduced environmental impact
should effort be reduced
•
Unknown number of vessel and shorebased staff layoffs.
•
•
Possible costs incurred to lay up or sell a
vessel.
•
Least certainty over the effectiveness of
an industry-led fishing plan.
•
Possibly less biological information
collected.
Utilisation: landed value of
approximately $2.6 million, or
approximately $3.94 million export
value, if TACC fully caught.
Page 87 of 397
APPENDIX 5 – RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
164
A summary of the recommended management measures is provided in the body of the FAP.
Sub-area and feature limits
165
A catch limit should continue to exist for each sub-area (A, B, C and D), and each of the
features. Feature limits per sub-area should be: A = 100 t, B = 150 t, C = 150 t, D = 75 t,
Mercury Colville Box = 30 t.
Mercury-Colville Box
166
The Mercury-Colville Box has had a 30 tonnes ORH 1 catch limit in place to allow the
catch of orange roughy as bycatch to cardinal fish target fishing. However, in some years
this limit has been greatly exceeded by combined target and bycatch take of orange roughy
(including as part of the directed exploratory fishing programme).
167
An assessment for the Mercury-Colville ‘box’ in 2001 assessed the stock to be below BMSY,
and that a catch of around 100 tonnes would probably maintain the then-current stock size,
while catches between 16 tonnes and 35 tonnes would be consistent with MCY or CAY
strategies and could allow the stock to rebuild slowly. Exceeding the 30 t limit in the
amounts recorded over the past few years is not likely to be reducing the stock size,
although it may also be preventing rebuilding.
168
MFish’s advice continues to be that a 30 t bycatch-only limit (no orange roughy targeting in
this area) be maintained. MFish expects that industry make all reasonable attempts to
ensure that the limit is not exceeded, whether as a result of targeted fishing for cardinal fish
or any other species.
Monitoring and reporting
169
The M&MP/MOU contained several monitoring and reporting elements, each of which is
repeated:
a)
Fishers will notify the EFC of their intention to fish a sub-area or areas at least 12
hours prior to the each voyage. EFC will provide an update on the current catch
level by sub-area and feature, prior to the vessel departing. A full list of such
notifications should be furnished to MFish monthly, for auditing against TCEPR and
VMS data.
b)
Vessels will report date, time, feature, position, target species, estimated catch and
actual catch at the completion of every tow to EFC. At the conclusion of each
voyage, vessels will confirm to EFC the actual catch taken by feature and sub-area.
EFC will notify ORH 1 ACE holders at least monthly of catch by sub-area and
feature, and will immediately notify all operators when sub-area or feature limits are
close to being reached, or have been reached. EFC will notify MFish monthly of
catch by sub-area and feature, for auditing against TCEPR and VMS data.
Page 88 of 397
c)
Quota owners agree not to sell ORH 1 ACE to any non-shareholder who lands
ORH1 who has not agreed to fish according to these terms.
d)
EFC will provide an Annual Report to MFish on the ORH 1 fishery.
Directed Exploratory Fishing Programme
170
The exploratory fishing programme was designed to determine if fish populations shift
between features in different years in sub-area D. If this was indeed the case, spawning
aggregations would be found on different features from one year to the next.
171
EFC undertook a directed exploratory fishing programme in the Bay of Plenty with a
suitable vessel and a scientist on-board to manage the programme, between late June and
early August (dates varied by year). Generally speaking, tows were conducted on several
features in the Bay of Plenty, with biological sampling done and CPUE analysis conducted.
172
Evidence to date (from an analysis of four years) is that catch from all features contained
spawning fish, and that synchronised spawning occurred on a range of hills during winter.
The working group recommended changes to the 2006 programme design, and the survey
was completed; however, data from 2006 have not yet been analysed.
173
MFish is not convinced of the value of the exploratory fishing programme. MFish wrote to
EFC in June 2007 to advise that the winter 2007 programme was not required. MFish
recommends that the working group reconsider this programme by March 2008, once the
analysis of all data has been completed, to determine if useful information is likely to be
generated. If the programme is useful, the working group can properly structure the fishing
programme in time for the winter 2008 fishery.
Observer coverage
174
The MOU agreed to 50% observer coverage on all targeted tows. MFish sought to
implement 100% observer coverage on all ORH 1 fishing trips for 2007/08. For the
2007/08 fishing year, MFish intends to recommend 100% observer coverage for June and
July in sub-area A, C and D, and 100% observer coverage for October in sub-area B.
Outside these months, and where ORH 1 is likely to be caught only in small quantities, the
standard observer coverage of approximately 10 to 15% is intended to apply.
175
The proposed scientific observer coverage is aimed at improving voluntary compliance with
sub-area and feature limits, providing verification of fishing activity, and providing
opportunities to maximise the collection of biological data relevant to the management of
the fishery. This will ensure the greatest reliability of the available monitoring tools for the
fishery.
176
Decisions concerning the level of observer coverage are made by the Chief Executive under
s 224 of the Act. As such, any level of intended observer coverage is not a condition of any
TAC or TACC decision by the Minister. MFish will advise the Minister of the Chief
Executive’s intention to implement, subject to this consultation, a level of observer coverage
described above for ORH 1.
Page 89 of 397
Biological sampling
177
Sampling of catch will be carried out by MFish observers to the accepted sampling
protocols.
Page 90 of 397
Page 91 of 397
ORANGE ROUGHY (ORH 3B) – FINAL ADVICE
Figure 1: Quota Management Area (QMA) for orange roughy (ORH 3B) stocks
Northwe st Rise
East Rise
Arrow
45°
South Rise
Fiordland
Puyse gur
Southland
Priceles s
Snares
Macquarie
50°
Bounty
Pukaki
Auckland
Antipodes
Sub-Antarctic
EEZ
1000 m
55°S
165°E
170°
175°
180°
175°
Executive Summary
1
ORH 3B is a large and spatially complex fishery, comprised of several biological stocks. A
range of sub-QMA catch limits are managed under a voluntary agreement by the Deepwater
Group (DWG) which represents 97.95% of the ORH 3B quota owners. Monthly reports on
catch by sub-stock and sub-area 50 are provided to MFish.
2
Although information at the stock level is uncertain, on balance MFish considers that the
ORH 3B stock is likely to be below BMSY and that it is appropriate to manage this stock
under section 13(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act). MFish considers that the
management measures in place for the Northwest Chatham Rise, Arrow Plateau, Puysegur
and the Sub-Antarctic sub-stocks are appropriate. Options considered in the paper address
management measures for the South and East Chatham Rise.
3
No new stock assessment information is available this year. A proposed South Chatham
Rise assessment was not carried out as new analyses in 2007 suggested that the East and
50
See paragraphs 9 -10 for definitions of geographic terms.
Page 92 of 397
South Chatham Rise do not constitute separate sub-stocks. The reasons for rejecting the
South Chatham Rise assessment raise concerns over the stock assessment boundaries on the
East and South Chatham Rise. Separate stock assessments for sub-area components within
the East Chatham Rise were accepted, with some reservations, by the Plenary in 2006.
While the East Chatham Rise assessments stand as the best available information on the
status of the East Chatham Rise fishery, there are reasons to consider that catch limits for
the East Chatham Rise sub-stock are not sustainable.
4
Prior to the 2006-07 fishing year, industry proposed a staged reduction of the catch limits on
the East and South Chatham Rise of 1,000 t per year for three years. You ultimately
supported this reduction in combination with a reduction in the catch limit on the Northwest
Chatham Rise, and reduced the ORH 3B TAC accordingly. As part of your decision,
industry was requested to limit the catch taken from the Andes Complex and the Northeast
Hills in response to your concerns of localised depletion. Industry expressed the view that
managing to these sub-area limits was not possible, nor was it warranted on the basis that
fish moved freely between features on the East and South Chatham Rise. Accordingly,
industry has not managed to the sub-area component limits for the Andes and the Northeast
Hills, although the sub-stock catch spreading arrangements (Northwest Chatham Rise, East
Chatham Rise, South Chatham Rise, Spawning Box, and Sub-Antarctic) have been
respected.
5
MFish considers that, although uncertain, there remain sustainability concerns for the South
and East Chatham Rise sub-stocks. Submitters share this view and support a decrease in the
catch limit on the South and East Chatham Rise. Industry has confirmed its support for a
further 1,000 t reduction to the TAC for the 2007-08 fishing year, to be effected by a
reduction in catch levels on the South and East Chatham Rise.
6
MFish proposes under Options 2 and 3 to retain the existing South Chatham Rise boundary
and to simplify the management arrangements within the East Chatham Rise. These
simplified arrangements retain measures to spread catch to ensure that effort is not
concentrated on any of the recognised feature complexes within the East Chatham Rise.
Effectively they provide for the East Chatham Rise catch limit to be spread between the
spawning box, the Northeast Rise (incorporating the Northeast Hills) and the Southeast Rise
(incorporating the Andes Complex).
7
Under Option 2, a 1,000 t reduction in the TAC would be effected by reducing the South
and East Chatham Rise catch limits, spread between the South Chatham Rise and the three
East Chatham Rise areas. Option 3 proposes a reduction of 2,000 t incorporating the same
catch split arrangements.
8
Industry has confirmed that, although it does not agree with the rationale provided by MFish
for the sub-area component catch spreading arrangements, it will abide by all catch
spreading arrangements at the sub-stock and sub-area component scales under Option 2 if
this is the option that you choose to implement. However they remain opposed to Option 3
and it is unclear whether industry would abide by the catch spreading arrangements under
this option.
Page 93 of 397
Terminology used to describe spatial portioning in ORH 3B
9
ORH 3B is a large and spatially complex fishery, comprised of several biological stocks of
orange roughy, although there is debate over the boundaries between these biological
stocks. To avoid confusion between biological stocks and the stock defined at the QMA
level, biological, or geographically distinct, orange roughy populations will be referred to
here as sub-stocks 51. Where it is necessary to consider areas within the sub-stock
boundaries they will be referred to generically as sub-area components 52. For example
ORH 3B is a stock, the East Chatham Rise is a sub-stock and the Andes Complex is a subarea component. MFish and DWG have agreed to this terminology.
10
Sub-stock and sub-area component boundaries are defined in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3
respectively. The sub-stock boundaries are shown in Figures 1 and 2 and Figures 3 and 5
show the existing and proposed sub-area component boundaries respectively.
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
11
51
52
The IPP proposed the following options:
ORH 3B
Sub-stocks and sub-area components
Northwest Chatham Rise
Option 1 - status
quo
750 t
East and South Chatham Rise
East Chatham Rise
Spawning Box (Jun-Aug)
NE Hills
Andes Complex
Spawning box (outside Jun- Aug) + Eastern Flats
South Chatham Rise
Puysegur
Arrow Plateau
Sub-Antarctic
Feature limit
Research survey allowance
TACC
Other sources of fishing related mortality
TAC
8,650 t
(Maximum) 7,250 t
4,000 t
200 t
700 t
2,350 t
(Maximum) 2,000 t
0t
0t
1,850 t
500 t
250 t
11,500 t
575 t
12,075 t
DWG has previously referred to these sub-stock boundaries as ‘designated sub-areas’.
This is consistent with DWG terminology for these areas
Page 94 of 397
ORH 3B
Sub-stocks and sub-area
components
Northwest Chatham Rise
Option 2
East and South Chatham Rise
East Chatham Rise
Spawning Box (Jun-Aug)
Northeast Rise
Southeast Rise
South Chatham Rise
Puysegur
Arrow Plateau
Sub-Antarctic
Feature limit
Research survey allowance
TACC
Other sources of fishing
related mortality
TAC
Option 3
750 t
750 t
7,650 t
(Maximum) 6,500 t
3,200 t
1,650 t
1,650 t
(Maximum) 1,750 t
0t
0t
1,850 t
500 t
250 t
10,500 t
6,650 t
(Maximum) 5,500 t
3,200 t
1,150 t
1,150 t
(Maximum) 1,750 t
0t
0t
1,850 t
500 t
250 t
9,500 t
525 t
475 t
11,025 t
9,975 t
Final Proposal
12
The options provided for your consideration are:
a)
Option 2:
AGREE to reduce the ORH 3B TAC from 12,075 tonnes to 11,025 tonnes
and the TACC from 11,500 tonnes to 10,500 tonnes;
AND
Request industry to alter the voluntary catch split arrangements as detailed in
the table above;
OR
b)
Option 3:
AGREE to reduce the ORH 3B TAC from 12,075 tonnes to 9,975 tonnes
and the TACC from 11,500 to 9,500 tonnes;
AND
Request industry to alter the voluntary catch split arrangements as detailed in
the table above;
Additional measures common to all options are to:
Request industry to spread catch between individual features within the
broader sub-area component catch limits;
Page 95 of 397
AND
Request that, as far as possible, fishers targeting orange roughy on features in
ORH 3B follow known trawl tracks;
AND
Request industry to confirm the voluntary agreement on the new catch limits
within ORH 3B; and
i)
acknowledge the objectives and operational implementation of the
Deepwater Fisheries Management Agreement prior to the 1 October
2007 fishing year;
ii)
continue to submit annual updates and specific DWG annual
agreements that pertain to the ORH 3B fishery to MFish;
iii)
continue to submit monthly monitoring reports pertaining to catch
levels by both sub-stock and sub-area component to MFish;
iv)
continue to notify MFish when catch reaches 80% of the sub-stock
and sub-area component limits, and also notify MFish when any limit
has been reached;
v)
request that DWG continue to work with MFish Science group to
develop and present a stock assessment research programme for the
Sub-Antarctic;
vi)
request that DWG continue to work with MFish Science and
Operations Groups to develop alternative management options, with
associated research requirements, for the Chatham Rise stocks.
Consultation
13
Your decision whether or not to adjust the TAC for ORH 3B is a decision under section
13(2)-(4) of the Act and therefore the consultation requirements of section 12 apply.
Further, in respect of your decision whether or not to adjust the TACC for ORH3B, the
consultation requirements set out in section 21(2) apply.
14
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of
those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the
aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Mäori, environmental, commercial,
and recreational interests. Additional consultation was undertaken with industry with
regards to voluntary arrangements proposed under each option.
Submissions Received
15
Submissions regarding this proposal were received from:
•
Deepwater Group Ltd. (DWG)
•
Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc. (ECO)
Page 96 of 397
•
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC)
•
New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd. (SeaFIC)
•
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc (Forest & Bird)
•
Sanford Ltd. (Sanford)
•
Te Ohu Kaimoana (TOKM)
•
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)
16
While little new information was provided through the submission process, clear positions
were established as to the appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed options. The views
expressed by submitters fall into two broad categories – that taken by industry and that by
the environmental non-government organisations (ENGOs). NZRFC did not express
support for any particular option but considered that management decisions should be made
with a view to ensure an effective rebuild of orange roughy stocks within 10 years.
17
Specific TAC and catch spreading arrangements proposed by submitters are summarised in
the table below.
Industry
Sub-stocks and sub-area
component
18
Environmental NGOs
DWG, Sanford,
SeaFIC and TOKM
WWF
F&B
ECO
Northwest Chatham Rise
750 t
450 t
410 t
410 t
East and South Chatham Rise
East Chatham Rise
Spawning Box
Northeast Rise
Southeast Rise
South Chatham Rise
7,650 t
------
4,400 t
3,000 t (max)
2,200 t
150 t
650 t
1,400 t (max)
Under 4,400 t
3,000 t (max)
3,000 t
170 t
650 t (Andes)
Under 1,400 t
Under 4,400 t
3,000 t (max)
3,000 t
170 t
650 t (Andes)
Under 1,400 t
Puysegur
0t
0t
0t
0t
Arrow Plateau
0t
0t
0t
0t
Sub-Antarctic
Feature limit
1,850 t
500 t
1,300 t
100 t
1,300 t
100 – 150 t
1,300 t
None specified
TACC
TAC
10,500
11,025
6,150 t
6,457.5 t
6,110 t
6,415 t
6,110 t
6,415 t
Submissions from industry were received from Sanford (which owns 34.7% of ORH 3B
quota), DWG (representing 97.95% of the quota owners in ORH 3B), SeaFIC and TOKM.
All four submissions indicated partial support for Option 2 by favouring a reduction in the
TACC of 1,000 tonnes to be implemented by a reduction in catch on the East and South
Chatham Rise. Industry submitters also agree with the catch spreading arrangements under
this option at the sub-stock level, recognising the Northwest Chatham Rise, the East and
South Chatham Rise combined, and the Sub-Antarctic as containing biologically distinct
orange roughy fisheries. TOKM submit that it will include conditions in its ACE round to
encourage compliance with these conditions where it is required, and will recommend that
the Asset Holding Companies that have received ORH 3B settlement quota also include
these conditions in their ACE sales agreements.
Page 97 of 397
19
All four industry groups express their opposition to catch limits at the sub-area component
scale on the East and South Chatham Rise. This position is primarily based on industry’s
perception that the orange roughy on the East and South Chatham Rise constitute a single
sub-stock and management by sub-area components within these sub-stocks only serves to
increase management complexities and cost, with no sustainability benefit. DWG, SeaFIC
and TOKM argue that spatial partitioning of the East and South Chatham Rise has arisen
from boundaries established for stock assessment purposes, and that these boundaries are no
more than assessment conveniences that have little, or no, real-world management utility.
In support of this position, DWG notes that a proposed assessment of the South Chatham
Rise in 2007 was abandoned on the basis that there was no valid biological reason for
treating orange roughy on the South Chatham Rise as distinct from those on the East
Chatham Rise.
20
SeaFIC supports the approach taken in Options 2 and 3 in the IPP to attempt to simplify
catch spreading at the sub-area component level and considers that such approaches have a
better chance of success than the unworkable status quo. The DWG, Sanford and TOKM
submissions were silent on whether industry would conform to the catch spreading
arrangements on the East and South Chatham Rise provided under these options.
21
Subsequent discussions between MFish and DWG have resulted in an agreement that
industry, although it does not agree with the rationale provided by MFish for the sub-area
component catch spreading arrangements, will nonetheless abide by all catch spreading
arrangements should you choose the 1,000 t TACC reduction under Option 2. Industry
makes it clear that they support Option 2 as an interim option to be superseded by
management arrangements developed through the fisheries plan process. Industry remain
opposed to a 2,000 t reduction under Option 3 and it is not clear whether industry would
abide by the catch spreading arrangements at this lower TAC.
22
In contrast to industry, ENGOs considered that all options provided in the IPP were
unsatisfactory. All ENGOs supported a significantly greater reduction in the TAC than any
of the options proposed in the IPP. While the figures presented in these three submissions
were largely in agreement, only ECO provided discussion justifying the catch limits
presented other than a general preference for a more precautionary approach expressed by
all three ENGOs. The ECO submission referred extensively to the Plenary report, adopting
a position generally consistent with the most precautionary interpretation of sustainable
catch levels presented in that document. Their position is consistent with that taken in 2006
which is appropriate as no new stock assessment information is presented in the 2007
Plenary report.
23
More generally, the ENGOs all submitted on the need to consider the environmental effects
of orange roughy fisheries, particularly in regard to benthic impacts (ECO, Forest & Bird,
and WWF) but also in regard to seabirds and marine mammals (WWF); and deepwater
sharks and other non-target fish species (Forest & Bird). In relation to benthic impacts all
ENGOs contend that neither the BPA proposal nor the seamount closures mitigate the
current impact of trawl fisheries.
24
Analysis of the best available information is included in the body of this paper and positions
taken in submissions, and in subsequent discussions, on the appropriate interpretation of this
information is included for your consideration where appropriate.
Page 98 of 397
Background information
25
Genetic data has demonstrated that there are two distinct main sub-stocks within ORH 3B –
the Chatham Rise and Puysegur - and that these sub-stocks are distinct from adjacent areas.
Genetic data also suggests that there are multiple sub-stocks within the Chatham Rise
although no clear boundaries have been determined. The boundaries most recently used for
assessing the Chatham Rise sub-stocks divide it into three areas: the Northwest, the East and
the South Chatham Rise. The Arrow Plateau is an area located to the east of the Chatham
Rise fisheries and the remaining southern portion of ORH 3B is referred to as the SubAntarctic (figure 1).
26
The most recent stock assessments in 2006 were undertaken on further subdivisions of the
East Chatham Rise (the Spawning Box, the Northeast Hills and the Andes). Although these
assessments were progressed through the Deepwater Fisheries Assessment Working Group
(Deepwater FAWG) and the 2006 Plenary, there is ongoing debate about the utility of these
finer scale divisions, and industry is opposed to their use.
27
While acknowledging this debate, MFish considers that there is evidence of localised
depletion across the various East Chatham Rise features and, given the potential effect on
the stock as a whole, this provides some basis for management intervention at a scale below
the sub-stock level.
28
Orange roughy spawn in dense aggregations and also form aggregations outside the
spawning period, presumably for feeding. This renders orange roughy susceptible to
overfishing and localised depletion. Localised depletion may indicate a sustainability
concern at the sub-stock level as it suggests that feature complexes across the Chatham Rise
may be serially depleted by fishing pressure.
Experience with orange roughy to date
suggests that the biomass found on such features may be reduced to levels that will no
longer support a localised fishery and that recovery from such levels is uncertain. Further
cause for concern over localised depletion on the East Chatham Rise is evidence of
spawning fish on the Northeast Hills. This may indicate a separate biological population on
these features and that fishing them, particularly over the spawning season, may result in the
depletion of such populations.
29
Although the Act requires TAC decisions to be made at the QMA stock level, management
of sub-stocks and sub-area components within these sub-stocks has historically relied on
agreements with industry to manage them independently. A key component of the
management options put in place for the 2006-07 fishing year were a suite of voluntary
catch spreading arrangements and DWG’s commitment to collect catch data by sub-stock
and sub-area component, and to submit regular reports to MFish.
Your 2006 decision
30
The 2006 Plenary reported on new stock assessments for the Northwest and East Chatham
Rise sub-stocks. As a result of this assessment the catch limits for the Northwest Chatham
Rise were judged to be unsustainable and you reduced the catch limit.
31
All parties expressed concern over the status of the sub-stocks on the East and South
Chatham Rise. DWG, representing 97.95% of ORH 3B quota owners, suggested a staged
reduction in catch levels on the East and South Chatham Rise over three years and you
ultimately agreed to adopt the industry offer for the first year of that process. In your
Page 99 of 397
decision letter for the current fishing year you reserved comment on the proposed reductions
for 2007-08 until you were able to consider the results of the proposed 2007 stock
assessment for the South Chatham Rise.
32
You also agreed with an industry proposal to close the Arrow Plateau. The Puysegur
fishery remained closed and the catch limit for Sub-Antarctic was increased to 1,850 tonnes.
A 250 tonne allowance for industry research surveys was retained.
33
In response to sustainability concerns for sub-area components within the East Chatham
Rise - specifically the Northeast Hills and the Andes complex – you decreased the TAC for
ORH 3B on the understanding that industry would effect this reduction through voluntary
arrangements to decrease the catch limit on the South and East Chatham Rise. Voluntary
sub-area component limits in the East Chatham Rise were also requested.
34
As a part of your decision, you requested DWG to manage the spreading of commercial
catch between the designated sub-stocks and sub-area components of ORH 3B. Industry,
through DWG, agreed to implement the catch spreading arrangements at the sub-stock level
and for sub-area components in the Sub-Antarctic.
35
During the decision-making process DWG wrote to you to express the industry view that
the sub-area component limits on the East Chatham Rise were not justified or warranted.
The essence of the industry position was that the sub-area components within this part of the
Chatham Rise formed components of the same population and fish movement between these
areas would render the proposed sub-area component limits ineffective as sustainability
measures. DWG also submitted that the timing of the decision made it difficult to
implement the sub-area component limits. By that time most of the ACE trading
arrangements for the 2006-07 fishing year had already been concluded, and quota owners
were therefore unable to impose conditions on this ACE.
36
In reply you reaffirmed concern over the localised depletion on the East Chatham Rise if the
sub-area component limits were not respected – specifically you requested again that the
spawning box limit of 4,000 t during the spawning season and the 700 t limit for the Andes
be observed for the 2006-07 fishing year.
Efficacy of existing catch spreading arrangements
37
Catch in the current fishing year to date as reported by DWG and confirmed by MFish
demonstrates that no sub–stock catch limit has been exceeded. While there were some
instances of non-reporting in the first quarter, these problems appear to have been rectified.
The reporting framework at the sub-stock level appears to be working well and the DWG
reports are providing full information.
38
DWG has also provided MFish with catch data by sub-area component in the Sub-Antarctic
and on the East Chatham Rise. DWG agreed to inform MFish when catch for any sub-area
component within the Sub-Antarctic reached 80% of the agreed limit. Reports to DWG
have indicated that catch reached 95% of the 500 t feature limit for Priceless early in the
fishing year. This feature was subsequently closed by industry agreement on 4 December
2006, although subsequent analysis determined that the feature limit was undercaught at the
time of closure. This discrepancy was primarily due to significant catch from a new area to
the south of the recognised Priceless box.
Page 100 of 397
39
A definition of this new feature area has not as yet been confirmed. Companies are
sensitive about giving away information about the localities of their 'hotspots', which result
from considerable exploratory fishing/searching activities and come at a significant cost. In
order to provide some measure of protection to company-specific information, and at the
same time exercise control over catches as prescribed for feature limits in the Deepwater
Agreement, DWG has gained agreement by industry to close an area described by a circle
with a radius of 20 nautical miles as a temporary measure (see Appendix 4 for details
provided by DWG). DWG requested that companies refrain from fishing for orange roughy
in this area from 30 March 2007 when the catch had reached 506 t. DWG has yet to reach
consensus on how to address this confidentiality issue and communication with quota
owners in this regard is on-going. Until such time as agreement is reached the area shown
in Appendix 4 will constitute a feature in terms of the Sub-Antarctic feature limit. Note that
this new area covers much of the Priceless Box.
40
Preliminary analysis suggests that two of the sub-area component limits on the East
Chatham Rise that you requested (the Andes and the Northeast Hills) have been
significantly over-caught. Although accurate figures are not yet available, the reported
catch appears to be close to twice the limits you requested on the Andes and approximately
three times that on the North-east Hills. These areas were closed on 15 June and 2 June
2007 respectively and key industry members have agreed to refrain from fishing these areas
for the remainder of the fishing year. While complete figures for the spawning box for the
June to August period are not yet available it appears that this sub-area component limit will
be undercaught to compensate for the over-catch on the Andes and the Northeast Hills and
thereby ensure that the sub-stock limits are not exceeded.
41
There are a number of factors that may have contributed to industry exceeding the sub-area
component limits on the East Chatham Rise. The correspondence between you, DWG, and
MFish regarding the catch-splitting arrangements on the East Chatham Rise, subsequent to
your decision in 2006, meant that the issue remained unresolved at the start of the fishing
year. This provided little time for DWG to put in place arrangements with operators for
management at the sub-area component scale.
42
This correspondence also made it clear that industry did not support the proposed sub-area
component management arrangements. As a consequence, at least some operators have
simply chosen not to abide by them. A contributing factor may also have been concern that
reporting arrangements had insufficient resolution to accurately allocate tows to features.
Rationale for Management Action
Status of the ORH 3B stock
43
The most recent stock assessment information is presented in the 2006 Plenary and is
repeated in the 2007 Plenary. No new stock assessment information is available subsequent
to your decision in 2006. A proposal to produce an updated stock assessment for the South
Chatham Rise using updated catch and effort data was considered by the Deepwater FAWG
in 2007. However concerns were raised as to whether the East and South Chatham Rise
constitute separate sub-stocks as both geography and catch data suggest that the South
Chatham Rise may be continuous with the East Chatham Rise. Doubts were also raised
over the current stock assessment models due to their poor fit to catch and effort data, and
Page 101 of 397
survey data. Ultimately this assessment did not proceed as it was decided to revisit stock
structure issues before proceeding further
44
The Plenary report includes the status of the various sub-stocks and sub-area components
for which stock assessments have been undertaken and no discussion is included on the
status of the ORH 3B stock as a whole. Although stock assessment information is not
available for all areas of the QMA, the main areas of the fishery are covered.
45
Although SeaFIC ultimately supports a TAC reduction, it contends in its submission that in
principle, if the available catches from the many stock assessments are added up, there is
probably no need for an aggregate TACC reduction at all. MFish does not agree with the
latter part of this statement, as discussed below.
46
A cursory examination of the status of the various components of the ORH 3B stock, as
reported in the 2007 Plenary, shows that the Northwest Chatham Rise, Northeast Hills and
Puysegur are considered to be below BMSY, the Andes and the South Chatham Rise are near
BMSY, and the Spawning Box and Northeast Flats are above BMSY. Although the Plenary
report notes that there is considerable uncertainty associated with all of these assessments,
MFish considers that the state of the Spawning Box and Northeast Flats should be treated
with particular caution.
47
The credibility of this assessment was questioned during the 2006 Deepwater FAWG
meetings and subsequently by stock assessment scientists at both NIWA and MFish. The
concerns raised relate not only to the 2006 assessment, but also to the previous East
Chatham Rise stock assessments in 2001 and 2005. In all three cases the estimates of
current biomass were considered by many to be overly optimistic, and such was the concern
after the 2005 assessment that three major workshop reviews were undertaken. The 2006
assessment instigated numerous refinements based on the recommendations of the three
review panels but resulted in little change from the 2005 assessment. Of primary concern
was the fact that a virtually identical rebuild was seen in the model regardless of whether the
observations from the fishery (i.e. acoustic survey data and CPUE indices) were included or
not. From this result it became apparent that the rebuild was largely driven by productivity
assumptions rather than actual data. This conclusion is included in the 2006 and 2007
Plenary reports. Subsequent to the 2006 Deepwater FAWG discussions, the MFish Chief
Scientist has published a paper (initially drafted in late 2006) claiming that the 2006 East
Chatham Rise stock assessment is an example of a failed stock assessment.
48
Tacit support for concerns over the state of the East Chatham Rise sub-stock may also be
drawn from submissions. All submissions received supported a reduction in the TACC, and
that this reduction should be implemented by a reduction in catch limits on the East and
South Chatham Rise. Sanford considers that this reduction is necessary to ensure the
sustainability of the ORH 3B fishery
49
ORH 3B, both in terms of the fishery and the biomass of the stock, is dominated by the East
Chatham Rise (i.e. the Spawning Box and the Northeast Flats stock assessment area).
Consequently the status of the ORH 3B stock as a whole, by and large reflects the status of
this portion of the stock. MFish considers that the stock assessment information presented
in the Plenary, and in particular that for the Spawning Box and Northeast Flats, should be
tempered by the significant uncertainty inherent in this information, and by anecdotal
information suggesting widespread concern over the state of the South and East Chatham
Rise sub-stock.
Page 102 of 397
50
Further increasing the uncertainty of conclusions drawn from simply aggregating the results
of individual stock assessments is the complex geographic nature of the various sub-stocks
that make up the ORH 3B stock, particularly on the East and South Chatham Rise. As
noted above, the proposed South Chatham Rise stock assessment did not proceed due to
suggestions that it may be continuous with the East Chatham Rise sub-stock. There is also
ongoing debate in the Deepwater FAWG over the East Chatham Rise stock assessment
boundaries which are effectively derived on a fishery basis, rather than delineating separate
orange roughy populations. SeaFIC allude to these concerns in their submission where they
state that concerns over the structure of existing assessments provide pause for thought.
51
MFish considers that a cautious approach to the stock assessment information is warranted
and that it is reasonable to conclude that, on balance, the ORH 3B stock is likely to be
below BMSY.
Catch spreading arrangements
52
Examination of the catch information for the 2006-07 fishing year to date clearly
demonstrates that, while the catch spreading arrangements at the sub-stock level are
operating effectively, those at the sub-area component scale on the South and East Chatham
Rise are not being respected by industry. MFish considers that it is necessary to revisit the
management approach for the orange roughy fisheries on the South and East Chatham Rise.
53
A research project in 2007-08 will look at the stock structure and distribution across the
Chatham Rise and may provide a basis for the consideration of sub-stock boundaries in the
future.
Fisheries plans
54
In light of uncertainty about the status of the orange roughy sub-stocks across ORH 3B, and
concerns over the location of sub-QMA stock assessment and management boundaries, a
new approach is required to derive management solutions for ORH 3B. Industry has
recognised the need to decrease orange roughy catch and will participate in the fisheries
plan process to develop and implement the range of measures that will be required.
55
Over the coming year MFish is investing considerable resources in the development of
fisheries plans across a number of fisheries including ORH 3B. A fisheries plan for orange
roughy is proposed for implementation prior to the start of the 2008-09 fishing year. This
plan will build on collaborative work already underway between MFish and DWG. A
successful conclusion will rely on willingness by all parties to engage meaningfully in the
process and to ultimately respect management actions included in the completed fisheries
plan.
56
MFish considers that the development of an orange roughy fisheries plan is a high priority
to provide a durable, long-term management approach to New Zealand’s orange roughy
fisheries. A suite of new management measures will flow from this process, which is likely
to include, but not be limited to, consideration of a potential reduction in the TAC,
realignment of management boundaries, fleet consolidation and better vessel co-ordination.
Page 103 of 397
The 2007-08 DWG proposal
TAC
57
Industry has reconfirmed its support of a TAC reduction of 1,000 t for the 2007-08 fishing
year and to review the need for any further change during 2008. This proposal is the second
step in the staged reduction that was initiated in 2006-07.
Catch spreading arrangements
58
In their submissions, industry agreed to effect the 1,000 t TAC reduction by reducing catch
limits on the South and East Chatham Rise. While industry remains fundamentally opposed
to management measures imposed at a scale below the sub-stock level, they agree that the
sub-area component approach proposed under Option 2 is an improvement over the finescale management arrangements that you requested for 2006-07 but were not agreed to by
quota owners. Industry, through DWG, has provided an assurance that they will abide by
the proposed arrangements under Option 2 at both the sub-stock and sub-area component
scales for the 2007-08 fishing year if this is the option that you choose to implement.
59
Industry wishes to make clear however that it considers this to be an interim arrangement
pending fisheries plan development. It also does not want the agreement to abide by these
arrangements for the 2007-08 fishing year to be interpreted as support for catch spreading at
the sub-area component level.
60
Industry does not support Option 3 and it is unclear whether it would abide by the catch
spreading arrangements at a lower TAC under Option 3.
Assessment of Management Options
Considerations at the stock (QMA) level
Total allowable catch
Section 13 (2)
61
The ORH 3B stock is managed under section 13 of the Act which requires that you set a
TAC that moves the stock to or above, or maintains the stock at or above, a biomass level
that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY). An assessment of the status of the
entire ORH 3B stock relative to BMSY 53 is not available. While information to underpin an
assessment of the overall status and long-term yield of the ORH 3B stock is not available,
on balance MFish considers it likely that the ORH 3B stock is below BMSY.
62
Given the concerns regarding catch levels and stock status, MFish recommends that you
consider the TAC for ORH 3B pursuant to section 13(2)(b) of the Act. Section 13(2)(b) is
appropriate in cases where the stock biomass is likely to be below BMSY and requires a TAC
that restores a stock biomass towards (at or above) a level that can produce the maximum
sustainable yield, having regard to the interdependence of stocks, biological characteristics
and environmental conditions. Consequently MFish considers that maintaining the status
53
For orange roughy stocks, BMSY is interpreted as the mean biomass under a CAY policy, which is estimated to be
30% Bo.
Page 104 of 397
quo under IPP Option 1 is not appropriate and we do not recommend this option to you.
MFish acknowledges that estimates of unfished biomass, current absolute biomass, or the
biomass that will produce MSY are unavailable for the entire ORH 3B stock and, as such,
there is no certainty whether or not the proposed TACs under Options 2 and 3 will restore
the stock to a size that will support MSY.
63
MFish does not consider that adopting the most precautionary interpretation of the Plenary
data, as advocated by the ENGOs is appropriate in all cases. Rather, the various
interpretations provided in the Plenary must be assessed on their merits. Ultimately it is
your decision as to the appropriate weightings to give the various components of the best
available information, and to determine what risk to the sustainability of the stock is
appropriate in providing for the utilisation of the ORH 3B stock.
Section 13 (3)
64
Section 13 (3) requires that, in considering the way and the rate that the stock may be
moved towards a level that can produce MSY under s 13(2)(b), you shall have regard to
such social, cultural and economic factors as you consider relevant.
Economic factors
65
The ORH 3B catch is New Zealand’s largest orange roughy fishery and also the largest such
fishery in the world. ORH 3B fishing is conducted throughout the year, although large
catches are taken in the June - July spawning season. Two companies hold 70%, and a
further four companies hold 20%, of ORH 3B quota; the remainder is settlement quota held
by 38 different Mäori interests.
66
Since 2001/02, between 15 and 27 vessels have completed in excess of 50 tows and have
fished in two or more fishing years, targeting orange roughy in ORH 3B.
67
The proposed reduction in the TAC of 1,000 t under Option 2 has been supported by
industry. A conservative estimate of the landed value of 1,000 t of orange roughy derived
from the 2006-07 port price in ORH 3B equates to a value of $3.67 million 54. Since the
majority of orange roughy is exported a better estimation of value may be derived from
export earnings. On the basis of export value (all product states) 1,000 t of orange roughy is
worth approximately $4.53 million 55.
68
The economic cost of the TAC reduction under Option 2, while significant, has been
accepted by the owners of 97.5% of the ORH 3B quota. The proposed sub-area component
catch spreading arrangements provide greater flexibility for industry to manage their fishing
operations than those under the status quo. This is likely to have an economic benefit for
operators although MFish is not in a position to quantify this effect and no information on
this point was provided through the consultation process.
69
Option 3 proposes a reduction in the TAC of 2,000 t which equates to a value of $7.34
million based on port price and $9.06 million based on export value. MFish notes that the
54
Estimated by multiplying the port price ($3.67/kg for 2006-07) by 1,000 t.
Export value was estimated by multiplying the export price by 1,000 t. In 2006, 4,601 tonnes of orange roughy fillets
(fresh and frozen) were sold for $72.93 million. The standard conversion factor for fillets is 3.5, so 4,601 tonnes of
fillets is estimated to equal 16,103 tonnes of orange roughy (greenweight). Therefore, in fillet form, the average price
is $4.53 per greenweight kilogram.
55
Page 105 of 397
staged reduction in the TAC proposed by DWG in 2006 included a further reduction of
1,000 t for the 2008-09 fishing year. Option 3 essentially accelerates the staged reduction
initially proposed by industry. Their proposal of annual 1,000 t cuts was to provide a ’soft
landing’ by allowing operators a period of time over which to rationalise their operations at
progressively lower TAC levels rather than to inflict a single large TAC reduction. A
further 1,000 t reduction in 2008 has not been confirmed by industry. Rather, they have
agreed to re-evaluate the need for further reductions to the ORH 3B TACC prior to October
2008.
70
Given that industry have previously contemplated a TAC reduction to the level proposed
under Option 3, MFish considers that the economic consequences of a staged TAC
reduction to the level proposed under Option 3 over two years instead of three must at least
have been considered by industry. However, a TAC reduction to this level for the 2007-08
fishing year, as proposed under Option 3, may have adverse economic and management
implications for operators in the short term, and these could be significant. Industry does
not support this option.
71
ENGOs support a reduction of the TAC of between 5,350 and 5,390 t which equates to a
value of $19.63 million to $19.78 million based on port price and $24.24 million to $24.42
million based on export value. Such a reduction would have significant adverse economic
and management implications for operators.
Social factors
72
Catch reductions can have social implications when employment opportunities for catching
and processing staff are reduced. The information MFish has on the impact on employment
that might arise from Options 2 and 3 is discussed under Economic Factors.
73
There is no known recreational or customary fishing for orange roughy, and no allowance
has been provided to non-commercial extractive users. There is a broad social benefit to
New Zealand from the supply of orange roughy to the domestic market, and there is a
general public benefit from the maintenance of orange roughy populations. MFish
considers that both of these issues are adequately addressed by maintaining a sustainable
fishery.
Cultural factors
74
MFish is not aware of any cultural factors relevant to these TAC or TACC decisions, and no
such factors have been raised by submitters.
TACC and Allowances
75
The TAC must be apportioned between the relevant sectors and interests set out under the
provisions of s 20 and s 21 of the Act. In varying the TACC, section 21 prescribes that you
shall make allowances for Mäori customary non-commercial interests, recreational fishing
interests, and for any other sources of fishing-related mortality. In determining these
allowances, you should consider how the allowances will enable people to provide for their
social, economic and cultural wellbeing (as provided for in the purpose of the Act).
76
There are no known Mäori customary or recreational fisheries for orange roughy due to the
geographic location of orange roughy fishing grounds, and the depth at which they live.
Page 106 of 397
MFish proposes that you set allowances of zero tonnes for recreational and Mäori
customary fishing under all options. This is consistent with the status quo and the approach
that has been adopted since orange roughy became a QMS species in 1986.
77
Other sources of fishing related mortality has been previously set at 5% of the TACC to
account for lost fish, discards, discrepancies in tray weights and conversion factors. There
is no information to support a change to this figure at this time.
Sub-QMA catch spreading arrangements
78
Proposed sub-stock and sub-area component catch limits for the 2007-08 fishing year are
discussed below. MFish recommends that catch limits and reporting requirements continue
to be managed by DWG as the reporting framework has worked well in the fishing year to
date. Under all options MFish will monitor DWG reports against data provided by
FishServe and will monitor operators’ fishing patterns to evaluate voluntary catch limits.
MFish will ensure that, through joint MFish-DWG communications, operators are fully
informed as to the progress of catch taken against sub-stock and sub-area component limits.
Considerations at the sub-stock level
Sub-stock boundaries
79
While there is some debate over the location of stock assessment and management
boundaries within ORH 3B, particularly between the East and South Chatham Rise, there is
no consensus position on what changes are necessary at this time. A desktop study on the
stock structure and spatial partitioning of Chatham Rise orange roughy sub-stocks generally
is currently being undertaken (Research Project ORH2007/05) and will provide a better
basis for determining where stock boundaries should lie. The location and need for
boundaries will be informed by the results of this research project and will be considered as
part of the development of a fisheries plan for ORH 3B. No changes to the recognised substock boundaries are proposed at this time.
80
The existing sub-stock boundaries are shown in figure 2 and are defined in Appendix 2.
Page 107 of 397
Figure 2 Sub-stock boundaries within the ORH 3B QMA.
Sub-stock catch limits
Northwest Chatham Rise
81
The catch limit for the Northwest Chatham Rise was decreased in response to sustainability
concerns identified in the 2006 stock assessment and no new information is available. In
their recent submission, ECO have repeated the argument made in their 2006 submission in
support of a catch reduction to, or below, the CAY estimate for 2007 of 410 tonnes.
82
The ECO position was considered in making your 2006 decision on the appropriate catch
limit for the Northwest Chatham Rise. MFish considers that the 2006 decision was
appropriate and in the absence of new stock assessment information, does not consider that
you should vary the current management arrangements for this sub-stock at this time.
83
All options retain the existing catch limit for the Northwest Chatham Rise.
East and South Chatham Rise
84
MFish notes that the Deepwater FAWG raised concerns over both the stock assessment
model and the stock assessment boundaries this year and there is considerable uncertainty as
to when new stock assessment information will be available. Nonetheless MFish remains
concerned that the current catch levels on the East and South Chatham Rise may not be
sustainable. Reasons for concern over the state of the East Chatham Rise sub-stock,
include;
•
A decrease in the CPUE;
•
Reductions in the spatial extent of commercially viable aggregations;
•
Reductions in the spatial extent of main spawning plume on the East Chatham Rise;
•
Reductions in biomass estimates of the East Chatham Rise spawning plume; and
•
Reductions in biomass estimates derived from wide-area surveys.
85
Both ENGOs and the industry share these concerns as demonstrated by their proposals to
reduce catch levels by 4,250 t and 1,000 t respectively. MFish recommends that the catch
limit on the East and South Chatham Rise be reduced for the 2007-08 fishing year.
86
As noted, there is debate over the separation of the East and South Chatham Rise sub-stocks
and MFish considers that discussion on the appropriateness or otherwise of an East / South
Chatham Rise split for stock assessment and/or management purposes should be informed
by the results of the research being undertaken in the coming fishing year and is then better
progressed through the fisheries plan process.
87
In the interim, MFish proposes that the existing structure of the East / South Chatham Rise
catch split be retained – that is, retain a catch limit for the combined South and East
Chatham Rise with maximum catch limits for each area. This approach ensures that catch is
spread between feature complexes and provides industry a degree of flexibility about where
their catch is taken. The South Chatham Rise catch is largely taken off the Chiefs – a
complex of hills at the eastern end of the South Chatham Rise – and MFish considers there
Page 108 of 397
is a sustainability risk should no limit be set for the South Chatham Rise. All options retain
the East/South split pending the outcome of a more detailed and informed analysis.
88
The original industry proposal of a 1,000 t reduction in the catch limit for the East and
South Chatham Rise did not address how this should be apportioned between the two areas.
In the IPP, MFish stated that it considers it appropriate to retain the existing catch split
proportions to effect the industry proposal. Catch spreading arrangements under Option 2
were derived on that basis and include a reduction in the maximum catch from the South
Chatham Rise to 1,750 t. This is above the projected South Chatham Rise catch for 200607. Industry has subsequently agreed to abide by this catch split should you agree to
implement Option 2.
89
Option 3 proposes a further reduction to the catch limit on the East Chatham Rise but
includes a maximum 1,750 t catch limit for the South Chatham Rise.
90
ECO’s proposed reduction of 4,250 t is based on the 2006 stock assessment information at
the sub-area component level and is discussed below.
Arrow Plateau
91
The Arrow Plateau has been closed to bottom trawling under the BPA initiative and the
catch limit for this portion of the stock will remain at zero. This position is supported by all
submitters.
92
All options retain a zero tonne catch limit for the Arrow Plateau.
Puysegur
93
The fishery has been voluntarily closed since 1997-98 and this closure is supported by all
submitters.
94
All options retain a zero tonne catch limit for Puysegur.
Sub-Antarctic
95
The catch limit for the Sub-Antarctic was increased in 2006 to 1,850 t on the basis of the
2006 stock assessment and no new information is available at the sub-stock scale. Industry
support retention of the existing catch level. ECO considers that there is no evidence that
the Sub-Antarctic fishery is sustainable. Rather ECO considers that declines in the Priceless
CPUE, significant catch reductions in the East Pukaki fishery, and an absence of large
spawning aggregations in this area of the ORH 3B QMA support a reduction in catch limit
to below 1,300 t.
96
MFish considers that your 2006 decisions remain appropriate. In the absence of new stock
assessment information, MFish does not propose varying the current management
arrangements at this time. ECO’s concerns over CPUE indices at spatial scales below that
of the sub-stock level are discussed below.
97
All options retain a catch limit of 1,850 t for the Sub-Antarctic.
Considerations at the sub-area component level
Catch spreading by sub-area component
Sub-Antarctic feature limits
Page 109 of 397
98
Both Priceless and a new southern box were closed for the remainder of the 2006-07 fishing
year once the catch limit of 500 t was reached, and industry supports retention of this limit
for 2007-08. ECO supports a reduction in feature limit closer to that provided in ORH 1 of
100-150 t.
99
The areas to which feature limits apply in the Sub-Antarctic orange roughy sub-stock are
significantly bigger than those in ORH1. Feature limits in ORH 1 are set at a standard size
and apply to 314 nm2 areas. In contrast Sub-Antarctic features enclose feature complexes
and the size of these complexes varies. For example the Priceless Box is 625 nm2 and the
new Southern area shown in Appendix 4 is 1,256 nm2. Both of these areas were closed
during the 2006-07 fishing year once the 500 t limit was reached. MFish considers that
your 2006 decisions remain appropriate and that the voluntary catch spreading and reporting
arrangements are working well. In the absence of new stock assessment information, MFish
does not propose varying the current management arrangements at this time.
100
MFish will continue to monitor DWG reports against data provided by FishServe and to
monitor operators’ fishing patterns to evaluate the effectiveness of voluntary catch limits in
2007-08. MFish will also ensure that, through joint MFish-DWG communications,
operators are fully informed as to the progress of catch taken against the Sub-Antarctic
feature limits.
East Chatham Rise
101 MFish acknowledges that the orange roughy taken from the various sub-area components
across the East Chatham Rise may comprise the same population although there remains
significant uncertainty regarding this contention. Nonetheless MFish remains concerned
that fishing pressure at the level seen in 2006-07 on the Andes Complex and the North-east
Hills may constitute a sustainability risk to the East Chatham Rise sub-stock.
102
Until we have a better understanding of the spatial structure of the orange roughy stocks on
the East and South Chatham Rise we will not be in a position to determine the implications
of localised depletion of the various features and feature complexes on which a significant
component of the ORH 3B fishery is based. Consequently MFish considers that it is
appropriate to continue to spread catches across the South and East Chatham Rise until a
more informed catch spreading framework can be established.
103
In your 2006 decision, you requested that the industry abide by sub-area component catch
limits. This decision reflected your concern about localised depletion largely based on the
stock assessment information for the East Chatham Rise sub-area components. The East
Chatham Rise sub-area components for which you requested catch limits in your 2006
decision are shown in figure 3 and are defined in Appendix 3.
Page 110 of 397
Figure 3 Existing sub-area component boundaries within the East Chatham Rise.
104
Concerns about the use of the sub-area component boundaries used in these assessments
have been raised by industry. The industry view that the sub-area component boundaries
have little management utility, coupled with the reliance on voluntary catch spreading
arrangements, has contributed to the sub-area component catch limits for the current fishing
year being largely ineffective.
105
In light of concerns over the efficacy of these sub-area component boundaries for stock
management purposes, and information suggesting that the East and South Chatham Rise
may comprise a single stock, MFish does not recommend persevering with this approach for
the 2007-08 fishing year.
106
Options 2 and 3 provide an alternative management arrangement that incorporates a
simplified catch spreading framework. These options are intended to effectively spread
catch across the East and South Chatham Rise, reducing the risk of localised depletion and
therefore the sustainability risk at the broader sub-stock level.
107
MFish considers that the proposed sub-area component boundaries and limits are a
reasonable trade-off between the need for industry flexibility, and the potential
sustainability risk associated with possible localised depletion. To an extent the proposed
boundaries respect existing fishing practices and therefore codify current arrangements, as
shown in the figure below.
Page 111 of 397
Figure 4 Fishing effort by proposed sub-area components from 1 October 2006 – 28 May 2007.
108
109
Under both options the East Chatham Rise would be divided into three sub-area
components, based on spatial and temporal considerations, with maximum catch levels
requested for each of the following divisions;
i)
the Spawning Box (in June – August);
ii)
the Northeast Rise (including the Spawning Box outside June - August, the
Northeast Flats and the Northeast Hills); and
iii)
the Southeast Rise (incorporating the Andes Complex and the larger Andes
Box)
The location of these sub-area component boundaries is shown in figure 4 and they are
defined in Appendix 4. They largely conform to the 2006 East Chatham Rise stock
assessment boundaries.
Page 112 of 397
Figure 5 Proposed sub-area component boundaries within the East Chatham Rise.
110
Although the sub-area components under this approach are larger than those under the
status quo, if respected by industry they will provide greater protection against localised
depletion on the Northeast Hills and the Andes Complex than the current ineffective subarea component arrangements.
111
Industry opposition to catch spreading at this scale stems from their views that any
sustainability risk associated with localised depletion on the Northeast Hills and the Andes
Complex is unclear and localised depletion is better considered as an economics issue (i.e.
adversely effecting catch rates) rather than a sustainability concern. They further contend
that management becomes more difficult and more costly at a finer scale. While MFish
accepts that there is uncertainty in quantifying the impact of localised depletion on
sustainability at a broader scale, and that management at finer scales is increasingly difficult
and costly, we nonetheless consider that there is a sustainability risk if catch spreading at the
sub-area component scale is not adhered to.
112
Options considered under this approach for voluntary catch spreading by sub-area
component within the East and South Chatham Rise catch limit are summarised in the
following table and discussed further below.
ORH 3B
Sub-Area components
East and South Chatham Rise
East Chatham Rise
Spawning Box(Jun-Aug)
Northeast Rise
Southeast Rise
South Chatham Rise
Voluntary catch
limits under Option
2
Voluntary catch
limits under Option
3
7,650 t
(Maximum) 6,500 t
3,200 t
1,650 t
1,650 t
(Maximum) 1,750 t
6,650 t
(Maximum) 5,500 t
3,200 t
1,150 t
1,150 t
(Maximum) 1,750 t
Sub-area catch limits under Option 2
113
Under Option 2 the method used to derive the catch limit for the Spawning Box is consistent
with that used to derive the South Chatham Rise catch limit i.e. the existing catch limit has
been reduced proportionately across the South and East Chatham Rise.
114
The current limits for the Northeast Rise and the Southeast Rise, which were derived from
the 2005 stock assessments, provide some guidance on appropriate catch levels for these
areas, although, as discussed, there are some concerns with this information. Past fishing
practices may also provide some guidance. In the absence of better information, MFish
proposes that the East Chatham Rise catch outside the spawning box is split equally
between the Northeast Rise and the Southeast Rise. This approximates both the current
catch split as effected by industry, and your 2006 decision at a coarser scale than was
requested at that time.
115
The removal of the existing fine scale sub-area component limits may increase the risk of
localised depletion, particularly on the Northeast Hills and the Andes Complex. As a part of
this approach, industry would be requested to spread catch between individual features
within the broader sub-area component catch limits but MFish does not propose to
Page 113 of 397
recommend specific feature limits at this time. Feature limits have failed for the current
fishing year and there is no information to suggest that industry would respect arrangements
requested at this scale for the 2007-08 fishing year. Industry have agreed to abide by all
catch spreading arrangements under Option 2. The agreement by industry to spread catch
across the various East Chatham Rise features, and their proposal to rationalise the ORH 3B
fleet, provide some measure of confidence that the risk of localised deletion and sub-stock
sustainability will be mitigated until this issue can be more satisfactorily addressed through
the fisheries plan process.
Sub-area catch limits under Option 3
116
As noted, the removal of the fine-scale sub-area component management arrangements you
requested in 2006-07 under Option 2 may increase the fishing pressure on the Andes
Complex and the Northeast Hills. This may increase localised depletion on these feature
complexes and may increase the sustainability risk at the sub-stock scale. Option 3 is
available if you consider this risk to be unacceptable.
117
Option 3 places greater weight on the possible risk of localised depletion if the information
that suggests there is a single East Chatham Rise, or East and South Chatham Rise, substock is wrong, or that that there is in fact greater site fidelity within the East Chatham Rise
sub-area components than is currently recognised.
118
Under Option 3 the catch limit for the East Chatham Rise has been reduced by a further
1,000 t, effected by reducing the sub-area component catch limits for the Northeast and
Southeast Rise by a further 500 t each. MFish considers that these reductions, when
compared to Option 2, will decrease the risk of localised depletion on the feature complexes
if industry adhered to them, and will move the sub-area component limits closer to the
current limits for the Andes and the Northeast Hills. Although the sub-area component
limits would remain higher than the existing levels, they also encompass significantly more
area.
119
These limits, although more restrictive than those under Option 2, provide greater flexibility
to industry than the existing sub-area component limits and are therefore more likely to be
respected. Industry has not confirmed whether it will abide by these limits and there
remains a risk that industry will consider arrangements under this option too restrictive. If
they are not adhered to, these limits may compromise the success of the voluntary
arrangements across the fishery and, ultimately, the sustainability of the fishery.
120
Existing sub-area component boundaries are defined in Appendix 3 and sub-area
components proposed for the East Chatham Rise under Options 2 and 3 are defined in
Appendix 4.
Fleet management
121
The owners of the majority of ORH 3B quota have advised that they are currently
conferring on commercial details to reorganise their ORH 3B harvest plans. This
reorganisation will reduce the number of vessels operating in ORH 3B and increase the coordination of the deployment of the fleet. Their motivations in instigating this approach are
to maximise catch rates, and therefore the economic returns from these fisheries; to reduce
fishing pressure on the grounds, and hence the environmental footprint; and to enhance the
collection of scientific information to inform future management decisions.
Page 114 of 397
122
MFish support this co-ordinated approach to fishing ORH 3B. Aggregations of orange
roughy are dispersed by trawling and fewer vessels means larger and denser aggregations of
fish should be available to fishers. A reduction in the size of the fleet would enable more
efficient fishing plans with vessels better able to expend effort in the most efficient manner,
both spatially and temporally. It could also lead to significant benefits to the sustainability
of the fishery, and reduce the environmental impacts of fishing.
Other options
123
It is open to you to implement other options. If you consider that the risk of localised
depletion producing sustainability concerns is unacceptable and that voluntary arrangements
are not satisfactory you may in future seek to sub-divide the QMA under section 25 to allow
the use of statutory tools to be used at a finer spatial scale than is currently available to you.
Alternatively you could close specific areas under section 11 of the Act through regulation
or gazette notice.
124
Given the information currently available, MFish does not propose either of these options at
this time. Although there may be two or more orange roughy stocks on the Chatham Rise it
is unclear where a boundary between distinct stocks could be drawn. Closing individual
features is also not currently proposed as there is concern that this would only serve to focus
pressure elsewhere. Any increase in pressure on the spawning plume would be of particular
concern.
125
If you wish to pursue the other options discussed above (i.e. to address concerns over
localised depletion), or TAC and TACC options outside the range proposed in the IPP,
MFish considers further consultation would be required with stakeholders before a decision
on such measures could be taken. As a consequence, such measures could not be
implemented prior to the commencement of the 1 October 2007/8 fishing year.
Environmental considerations relevant to setting the TAC
126
Under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, in varying the TAC, you must take into account any
effects of fishing on any stock and the aquatic environment. Moreover, the purpose of the
Act in section 8 provides that “ensuring sustainability” includes avoiding, remedying, or
mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment.
127
MFish is in the process of developing environmental standards - including a seabird
standard and a benthic impact standard - to ensure that statutory obligations to avoid remedy
or mitigate the adverse effects of fishing are met. These standards will ultimately be used to
inform fisheries plan development.
128
Key environmental issues in relation to considering the TAC for the ORH 3B fishery,
including environmental issues raised in submissions are discussed below in relation to the
options presented. The environmental impacts discussed are, to an extent, proportional to
effort in this fishery. Industry initiatives to reduce the number of vessels engaged in the
fishery, and reduce effort expended will have a significant benefit in reducing the
environmental footprint of this fishery. Any reduction in the TAC will have the same
positive effect.
Page 115 of 397
Finfish Bycatch
129
Forest & Bird expressed concern at the impact of orange roughy fishing on non-target fish
species. While a number of deepwater species that share similar habitat to orange roughy
are taken in the ORH 3B fishery (including the QMS species oreo, ribaldo, rubyfish and
gemfish) targeted orange roughy fishing historically captures over 90% orange roughy. No
increase in the orange roughy TAC is contemplated and consequently there should be no
increase in finfish bycatch under any option.
Shark Bycatch
130
Forest & Bird has also expressed concern at the impact of orange roughy fishing on highly
vulnerable deepwater sharks. MFish notes that deepwater sharks account for less than 1%
of the bycatch in orange roughy fisheries. Issues in relation to the impact of fishing on
sharks generally are addressed in a specific national plan of action for sharks which is in
preparation by MFish.
Marine Mammals
131
The WWF submission touched on the impact on marine mammals. As no increase in the
orange roughy TAC is contemplated, MFish consider that there should be no increase in
marine mammal interactions under any of the proposed options.
Seabirds
132
Trawl fisheries for orange roughy are known to interact with seabirds and concern over this
impact was raised by WWF. Fishing-related mortalities of seabird species are known to
occur in ORH 3B, although it is difficult to quantify the overall impact as knowledge of the
population characteristics of seabird species is typically limited. It is known however that
the Chatham Rise and Sub-Antarctic regions are areas of vulnerable and threatened sea bird
species such as the Chatham Island Albatross (International Union for the Conservation of
Nature, (IUCN) status: critically endangered), Black Browed and Northern Albatross (IUCN
status: endangered), the Shy Albatross and Northern Giant Petrel (IUCN status: near
Threatened).
133
As no increase in the orange roughy TAC is contemplated, MFish consider that there should
be no increase in seabird interactions under any of the proposed options.
Benthic impacts and coral bycatch
134
All ENGO submissions discussed the need to consider the benthic impacts of orange roughy
fisheries. Bottom trawling can affect fragile benthic invertebrate communities but adverse
effects in terms of area disturbed may be reduced if vessels repeatedly trawl along the same
towlines in a fishery. Under all options industry is requested to follow known trawl tracks.
135
Under all options the TAC will be decreased, which is likely to reduce the fishing effort
expended in ORH 3B. In addition, the fleet rationalisation being implemented by the
industry is likely to further reduce the number of tows undertaken in the future.
136
Two other initiatives are in place to address benthic impacts. In 2001 the then Minister of
Fisheries initiated a trawl closure covering a selection of 19 seamounts of varying size and
depth within New Zealand (10 of which are within ORH 3B). In addition a further twelve
areas have recently been closed to bottom trawling under the BPA proposal within ORH 3B,
Page 116 of 397
totalling close to 350,000 square kilometres. While ENGOs contend that neither the BPA
proposal nor the seamount closures are sufficient to mitigate the current impact of trawl
fisheries MFish considers that these closures make a significant contribution to the
protection of a wide range of habitat types found in New Zealand’s EEZ.
Additional management issues
Compliance implications
137
Key offences that may occur in ORH 3B include misreporting of QMA, species and
weights, fishing in closed areas and bycatch targeting. MFish considers that the proposed
management options should not significantly increase the incentive to offend.
138
Industry’s adherence to voluntary catch spreading arrangements is currently monitored
through monthly reports compiled and sent to MFish by DWG. The monthly reports pertain
to catch levels by both sub-stock and sub-area component. Industry, through DWG, notifies
MFish when catch reaches 80% of the sub-stock and sub-area component limits, and also
notifies MFish when any limit has been reached. Existing reporting arrangements have
been working well and are retained under all the proposed options.
Sub-Antarctic stock assessment
139
Included in your decision last year, was a request that DWG work with MFish Science to
develop and present a stock assessment research programme for the Sub-Antarctic. As part
of this initiative, an industry vessel completed a survey of the Priceless feature over the
spawning period. This survey included acoustics and biological sampling aimed at
determining if spawning was taking place on this feature complex. Results will be
presented to the Deepwater FAWG with further survey work planned for the 2007-08
fishing year.
Page 117 of 397
APPENDIX 1
Statutory Considerations
140
When setting or varying the TAC and TACC under the Act, you are required to consider a
series of principles and factors:
a)
b)
Section 13(2) MFish recommends that you consider varying the TAC pursuant to s
13(2)(b) to enable ORH3B to be restored to a level at or above BMSY. An assessment
of the current status of the entire ORH 3B stock or stock complex relative to BMSY is
not available and no new stock assessment information is available this year. After
considering the available stock assessment information, and taking into account the
significant uncertainty associated with the stock assessment for the Spawning Box
and Northeast flats area in conjunction with widespread anecdotal information that
suggests concern over the status of the South and East Chatham Rise sub-stock,
MFish considers that, on balance, the ORH 3B stock is likely to be below BMSY.
MFish also considers that the proposed TACs (along with the proposed catch limits
on the South and East Chatham Rise) should restore the stock to a biomass that can
produce MSY. The specific considerations set out in s 13(2)(b) include having
regard to the interdependence of stocks, the biological characteristics of the stock
and any environmental conditions affecting the stock. As such, in considering the
proposed TAC options and corresponding proposed periods of rebuild, you must
take into account:
i)
The interdependence of stocks for ORH 3B (as required by s 13(2)(b)(i)).
There is no information to suggest the interdependence of stocks should
affect the level of the TACs and sub-area component catch limits set for
ORH 3B at this time. The fishery is relatively clean, and bycatch proportions
are low given that the fishery primarily targets aggregations of orange
roughy.
ii)
Environmental factors affecting ORH3B (as required under s 13(2)(b)(ii)).
However, no specific environmental conditions affecting the ORH 3B stock
have been identified.
iii)
The biological characteristics of ORH3B (as required under s 13(2)(b)(ii)). It
is known that orange roughy are very long-lived and late maturing, which are
biological characteristics that render them slow to recover from overfishing.
Section 13(3) requires that you, in considering the way and rate at which a stock is
moved towards BMSY, have regard to such social, cultural, and economic factors as
he considers being relevant when determining the way and rate at which to move the
stock biomass toward or above the BMSY level.
Economic considerations have been discussed in the body of the paper in paragraphs
69-75.
Industry proposes a consolidation of the fleet deployed in the ORH 3B fishery. Such
a consolidation is likely to significantly reduce the number of personnel involved in
this fishery and will have a greater social impact than any of the proposed TAC
reductions.
Page 118 of 397
MFish is not aware of any recreational or customary Mäori interest in the fishery and
no other cultural factors that MFish consider are relevant to your determination
under section 13(3).
c)
Sections 5(a) and (b) require the Act to be interpreted consistently with New
Zealand’s international obligations with respect to fishing and with the provisions of
the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. Provisions of
general international instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Fish Stocks Agreement have been implemented
through the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1996 and given effect here. MFish
considers that the options are consistent with both New Zealand’s international
obligations relating to fishing and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries
Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
d)
Section 8 of the Act describes the purpose of the Act as being to provide for the
utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability, and defines the
meanings of utilisation and sustainability. The management options presented seek
to achieve the purpose of the Act. The proposals allow for variable levels of
utilisation through the setting of catch limits. The proposals ensure sustainability
under the respective catch limits via different fine-scale management and monitoring
measures that address risk as appropriate to the different levels of catch, and take
into account the respective costs of management versus the utilisation benefits.
e)
Sections 9(a) and (b) require you to take into account that associated or dependent
species (those that are not harvested) be maintained at or above a level that ensures
their long-term viability, and that the biological diversity of the aquatic environment
should be maintained. The specific nature and extent of effects of fishing on any
particular sub-stock in ORH 3B and the environment are generally understood to be
localised and specific to aggregations of orange roughy at 850-1,200 metre depths.
While some bycatch of non-harvested species is known, the impact that fishing for
ORH 3B has on the long term viability and biological diversity of the aquatic
environment is of greater concern in regions of steep sloping and highly diverse
topographic features. Some features within ORH 3B have been set aside from all
trawling, including ten seamounts and the Arrow Plateau, to mitigate the benthic
effects of fishing.
The main prey species for orange roughy include mesopelagic and benthopelagic
prawns, fish and squid, with other organisms such as mysids, amphipods and
euphausiids occasionally being important. MFish has considered the effects on
associated and dependent species and biodiversity that would affect the setting of the
TAC and determined the impact is addressed under the catch spreading
arrangements.
f)
Section 9(c) requires you to take into account the principle that habitat of particular
importance for fisheries management should be protected.
While trawling can adversely affect fragile benthic invertebrate communities, the
commercial bycatch of benthic invertebrates is seldom recorded or examined.
Research has revealed marked differences in the bottom fauna of fished and unfished
seamounts off New Zealand and Tasmania, and those differences have been ascribed
to the impact of bottom trawling. Researchers have reported anecdotal evidence of
bycatch of coral species in developing orange roughy fisheries in New Zealand.
Page 119 of 397
Nineteen seamounts of varying size and depth within New Zealand waters have been
closed to trawling, and ten of these are within ORH 3B. In addition, 12 BPAs are
within ORH 3B. These closures should therefore protect faunas in a variety of
habitats from the effects of fishing. The material discussion in paragraphs 139-141
in the body of the paper is also relevant to your consideration of this principle.
g)
Section 10 of the Act sets out the information principles, which require that
decisions be based on the best available information, taking into account any
uncertainty in that information, and applying caution when information is uncertain,
unreliable, or inadequate. In accordance with s 10, the absence of information
should not be used as a reason to postpone, or fail to take, any measure to achieve
the purpose of the Act, including providing for utilisation at levels considered to be
sustainable. The status of the entire ORH 3B stock complex relative to BMSY is
uncertain, and concerns raised at the 2007 Deepwater FAWG meetings in relation to
the stock assessment model and the stock assessment boundaries serve to increase
this uncertainty. In the body of the paper, MFish has also endeavoured to set out the
relevant uncertainty in, and inadequacy of, that information so that the appropriate
caution can be applied in assessing the proposed management options. On balance
MFish considers that the options provided are derived from the best available
information and cover an appropriate range of caution in response to the uncertainty
in that information.
h)
Section 11(1)(a): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must take into account
any effects of fishing on any stock and the aquatic environment. No information
about any effects of fishing on any stock or on the aquatic environment additional to
that discussed elsewhere in the paper (refer to discussion at paragraphs 131-141 is
considered relevant to the consideration of sustainability measures for ORH 3B at
this time.
i)
Section 11(1)(b): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must take into account
of any existing controls under the Act that apply to the stock or area concerned. For
ORH 3B, the measures that apply currently are a TAC, TACC and an allowance for
incidental fishing-related mortality. No other controls under the Act apply
specifically to ORH 3B. Specific seamount closures are located within ORH 3B.
j)
Section 11(1)(c): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must take into account
the natural variability of the stock. Orange roughy year-to-year biomass is not
known to be highly variable, and therefore the natural variability of orange roughy is
not a concern in setting the TAC for ORH 3B.
k)
Sections 11(2)(a) and (b): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must have
regard to any provisions of any regional policy or plan under the Resource
Management Act 1991 and any management strategy or plan under the Conservation
Act 1997 that apply to the coastal marine area and you consider relevant. MFish is
not aware of any such provisions that should be taken into account for ORH 3B.
l)
Section 11(2)(c): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must have regard to
sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 that apply to the coastal
marine area and you consider relevant.. The distribution of orange roughy in the
ORH 3B QMA does not intersect with the Park boundaries.
m)
Section 11(2A)(b): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must take account of
any relevant and approved fisheries plans. A fisheries plan incorporating ORH 3B is
Page 120 of 397
proposed for development in 2007-08. However, at present, no such plan has been
finalised or approved by you.
n)
Sections 11(2A)(a) and (c): Before varying the TAC for ORH3B, you must take
into account any conservation or fisheries service, or any decision not to require such
services. MFish does not consider that existing or proposed services materially
affect the proposals for the ORH 3B stock. No decision has been made to require or
not require a service in this fishery at this time.
o)
Section 20 and 21 specify a number of matters that must be taken into account when
setting or varying a TACC. Section 21 requires you to allow for non-commercial
Mäori and recreational fishing interests, and other sources of fishing-related
mortality when setting or varying the TACC. The nature of the ORH 3B fishery and
the interests of recreational and customary fishers have been considered in proposing
the TACCs. These interests are discussed further at paragraphs 79-81 in the body of
the paper.
p)
Section 21(4) also requires that any mätaitai reserve or closure/restriction under s
186A to facilitate customary fishing be taken into account. There is one mätaitai
reserve in ORH 3B generally (Te Whaka a Te Wera Maitaitai – located in Patterson
Inlet, Stewart Island), but this does not intersect with the ORH 3B fishery. No area
has been closed or fishing method restricted (that affects the fishery within ORH 3B)
under the customary fishing provisions of the Act.
q)
Section 21(5) also requires that any regulations to prohibit fishing made under s 311
be taken into account when setting allowances for recreational interests. No
restrictions under s 311 have been placed on fishing in any area within ORH 3B.
Page 121 of 397
APPENDIX 2.
Definition of ORH 3B sub-stock boundaries
Note: All positions are given in degrees, minutes and decimal minutes format.
Figures in brackets are decimal degrees with western longitudes given as a progression of
eastern longitude (for example 179º W is given as 181).
Northwest Chatham Rise
The area within the box defined by the points:
42º10.0’ S, 174 º42’ E
42º10.0’ S, 178 º00’ W
44º00.0’ S, 178 º00’ W
44º00.0’ S, Coastline
43º44.3’ S, 173 º07.5’ E
43º08’ S, 173 º57’ E
(-42.166667, 174.700000)
(-42.166667, 182.000000)
(-44.000000, 182.000000)
(-44.000000, coastline )
(-43.738333, 173.125000)
(-43.133333, 173.950000)
South Chatham Rise
The area defined by the points:
44º00’ S, 171 º55.8’ E
44º00’ S, 175 º00’ W
46º00’ S, 175 º00’ W
46º00’ S, 170 º15.6’ E
(-44.000000, 171.930000)
(-44.000000, 185.000000)
(-46.000000, 185.000000)
(-46.000000, 170.260000)
Note that for the area defined above, points 1 and 4 are linked by the coastline. For reporting
purposes the following rectangular box that overlaps with the South Island may be used:
44º00’ S, 170 º15’ E
44º00’ S, 175 º00’ W
46º00’ S, 175 º00’ W
46º00’ S, 170 º15.6’ E
(-44.000000, 170. 256977)
(-44.000000, 185.000000)
(-46.000000, 185.000000)
(-46.000000, 170. 260000)
East Chatham Rise
The area within the box defined by the points below:
42º10’ S, 178 º00’ W
42º10’ S, 173 º40’ W
46º00’ S, 173 º40’ W
46º00’ S, 175 º00’ W
44º00’ S, 175 º00’ W
44º00’ S, 178 º00’ W
(-42.166667, 182.000000)
(-42.166667, 186.333333)
(-46.000000, 186.333333)
(-46.000000, 185.000000)
(-44.000000, 185.000000)
(-44.000000, 182.000000)
Arrow Plateau
The area within the box defined by the points:
42º10’ S, 173 º40’ W
42º10’ S, 171º00.07’W
(-42.166667, 186.333333)
(-42.166667, 188.998833)
Page 122 of 397
46º00’ S, 171º46.68’W
46º00’ S, 173 º40’ W
(-46.000000, 188.222000)
(-46.000000, 186.333333)
Note that for the area defined above, points 2 and 3 are linked by the boundary of the EEZ.
Puysegur
The area within the rectangular box defined by the points:
46º00’ S, 165 º00’ E
46º00’ S, 166 º30’ E
47º30’ S, 166 º30’ E
47º30’ S, 165 º00’ E
(-46.000000, 165.000000)
(-46.000000, 166.500000)
(-47.500000, 166.500000)
(-47.500000, 165.000000)
Sub-Antarctic
The remaining area within ORH 3B. Specifically the area (excluding Puysegur) within the EEZ
and below 46º00’ S on the East Coast and 44º15.6’ S on the West Coast.
Page 123 of 397
APPENDIX 3.
Definition of the East Chatham Rise sub-area component
boundaries under Options 2 and 3
Note: All positions are given in degrees, minutes and decimal minutes format.
Figures in brackets are decimal degrees with western longitudes given as a progression of
eastern longitude (for example 179º W is given as 181).
Spawning Box
The area within the rectangular box defined by the points:
42º10’ S, 178 º00’ W
42º10’ S, 175 º00’ W
44º00’ S, 175 º00’ W
44º00’ S, 178 º00’ W
(-42.166667, 182.000000)
(-42.166667, 185.000000)
(-44.000000, 185.000000)
(-44.000000, 182.000000)
Northeast Rise
The area within the rectangular box defined by the points:
42º10’ S, 178 º00’ W
42º10’ S, 173 º40’ W
44º00’ S, 173 º40’ W
44º00’ S, 178 º00’ W
(-42.166667, 182.000000)
(-42.166667, 186.333333)
(-44.000000, 186.333333)
(-44.000000, 182.000000)
Southeast Rise
The area within the rectangular box defined by the points:
44º00’ S, 175 º00’ W
44º00’ S, 173 º40’ W
46º00’ S, 173 º40’ W
46º00’ S, 175 º00’ W
(-44.000000, 185.000000)
(-44.000000, 186.333333)
(-46.000000, 186.333333)
(-46.000000, 185.000000)
Page 124 of 397
APPENDIX 4.
Sub-Antarctic features
Page 125 of 397
Priceless
The area within the rectangular box defined by the points:
48º05.5’ S, 174 º42’ E
48º05.5’ S, 175 º13’ E
48º26.5’ S, 175 º13’ E
48º26.5’ S, 174 º42’ E
(-48.091667, 174.700000)
(-48.091667, 175.216667)
(-48.441667, 175.216667)
(-48.441667, 174.700000)
Temporary Closure
The circle wit a radius of 20 nm, centred on the point:
48o.30’ S, 175 o.00 ’E
(-48.500000, 175.000000)
Page 126 of 397
Page 127 of 397
ORH 7B – FINAL ADVICE
Figure 1: Quota Management Area (QMA) for ORH 7B
Executive Summary
1
The TAC and landings in the ORH 7B fishery reached a peak in the late 1980s and early
1990s and have subsequently declined to the point where the TAC is now less than 7% of its
highest level. The current TAC of 110 tonnes is the maximum constant yield (MCY) level
estimated in 2001 (110 t mean, with a range of 80 t to 180 t).
2
By the late 1990s the stock was believed to be well below BMSY and the 2004 stock
assessment indicated that the stock was at 17% B0. Despite the large reduction in annual
removals from the stock since 2001-02 recent catch rates have not increased over the last 5
years.
3
Since the TAC was reduced to its current level, it has not been fully caught in four of the
five years. Catch rates have also decreased with their mean values now less than 10% of
those at the start of the fishery. A new stock assessment was attempted in 2007 but was
rejected on the basis that it was insensitive to the recent CPUE data and predicted a rebuild
that was not supported by any observations in the fishery. The 2007 Plenary report
concludes that no estimate of current biomass is available, although it is likely that the
biomass of the stock is below that which can support the maximum sustainable yield
(BMSY). The Plenary further states that it is not known if catches at the level of the current
TAC will allow the stock to move towards a size that will support the maximum sustainable
yield (MSY).
4
Analysis of catch and effort data shows a spatial and temporal dispersion of effort, a large
increase in tow duration over the last five years and a decrease in both catch per tow and
catch per hour over the course of the fishery, although catch per tow and catch per hour
Page 128 of 397
have been relatively stable over the past five years. It appears that fishers are finding it
increasingly difficult to locate significant aggregations of orange roughy, suggesting
concerns over the state of the ORH 7B stock.
5
Industry argues that there are reasons other than those presented by the Ministry of Fisheries
(MFish) in the IPP to explain the CPUE observations and the under-catch of the TAC in
recent years. DWG has also presented catch and effort data from the current fishing year to
demonstrate its contention that CPUE in this orange roughy fishery is more an artefact of
fishing behaviour than an indicator of underlying stock size, and that the TAC has been
fully caught this year. While it appears that industry was able to catch the TAC in 2006-07
and to increase catch rates through changes in the way the fishery was prosecuted, MFish
does not consider that the information provided by industry is sufficient to fully satisfy
concerns over the state of the ORH 7B stock.
6
Three management approaches are presented to address the current situation in ORH 7B –
retain the existing TACC (IPP Option 2), reduce the TACC moderately below the level of
current catch (Option 3) or effectively close the fishery (Option 4). If you consider that the
current TAC is not enabling the stock to rebuild in an appropriate way and rate then you
should decrease it. Given the already low TAC, reducing the TAC further to an
intermediate level as proposed under Option 3 may not provide a meaningful or reasonable
management response. To effectively close the fishery you must consider that no level of
commercial take will allow the stock to rebuild at an acceptable rate. Under this option no
fishery dependent data would be collected and there would be little prospect of the TAC
being increased in the short to medium term. Administrative requirements necessitate that a
one tonne TAC is provided if the fishery is effectively closed.
7
Under Options 2 and 3, MFish proposes to require all operators in the fishery to report on
Trawl Catch Effort Processing Return (TCEPR) forms to improve the spatial and temporal
resolution of the CPUE data. Industry has also proposed development of a directed fishing
programme to enhance the utility of CPUE information in providing an index of abundance.
While this approach shows some promise generally, its utility in regard to ORH 7B is
questionable. Industry considers this approach could be implemented under Options 2 or 3
for the 2007-08 fishing year, and you may wish to request further development and
implementation of this proposal.
8
MFish also considers it is appropriate to set an allowance for other sources of fishing related
mortality in line with other orange roughy fisheries in New Zealand (Options 2 and 3).
Under Option 2 the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) remains the same and,
although increased, the TAC better reflects the existing total fishing related mortality
(commercial extractions and incidental mortality) in this fishery.
Page 129 of 397
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
9
The IPP proposed the following options:
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
110 tonnes
115.5 tonnes
52.5 tonnes
1 tonne
Allowance for other
sources of fishing-related
mortality
0 tonnes
5.5 tonnes
2.5 tonnes
0 tonnes
Allowance for customary
Mäori interests
0 tonnes
0 tonnes
0 tonnes
0 tonnes
Allowance for recreational
fishery interests
0 tonnes
0 tonnes
0 tonnes
0 tonnes
110 tonnes
110 tonnes
50 tonnes
1 tonne
Status quo
TAC
TACC
a) Option one: status quo (no action).
b) Option two: Maintain the existing TACC and provide an allowance for other sources of
fishing-related mortality.
c) Option three: Reduce the TACC to 50 tonnes and provide an allowance for other
sources of fishing-related mortality.
d) Option four: Reduce the TACC to 1 tonne and effectively close the fishery.
Final Proposal
10
While all options proposed in the IPP remain open to you, MFish recommends either
Options 2, 3 or 4.
11
The options recommended for consideration are:
a)
Option 2 with additional conditions:
AGREE to retain the ORH 7B TACC at 110 tonnes;
AND
Provide an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of 5.5 tonnes (5%
of the TACC);
AND
Page 130 of 397
Increase the TAC to 115.5 tonnes to incorporate the allowance for other sources of
fishing related mortality;
AND
Note if you choose this option the Chief Executive intends to exercise his powers to
require all vessels fishing targeting orange roughy in ORH 7B to report on TCEPR
forms;
OR
b)
Option 3 with additional conditions:
AGREE to reduce the ORH 7B TACC to 50 tonnes;
AND
Provide an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of 2.5 tonnes (5%
of the TACC);
AND
Reduce the TAC to 52.5 tonnes to incorporate the allowance for other sources of
fishing related mortality;
AND
Note if you choose this option the Chief Executive intends to exercise his powers to
require all vessels fishing targeting orange roughy in ORH 7B to report on TCEPR
forms;
OR
c)
Option 4:
AGREE to effectively close the fishery and reduce the TAC and TACC to 1
tonne.
Consultation
12
Your decision whether or not to adjust the TAC for ORH 7B is a decision under section
13(2)-(4) of the Act and therefore the consultation requirements of section 12 apply.
Further, in respect of your decision whether or not to adjust the TACC for ORH 7B, the
consultation requirements set out in section 21(2) apply.
13
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of
those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the
aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Maori, environmental, commercial,
and recreational interests.
Page 131 of 397
Submissions Received
14
Submissions regarding this proposal were received from:
•
Deepwater Group Ltd. (DWG)
•
Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc. (ECO)
•
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC)
•
New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd. (SeaFIC)
•
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc (Forest & Bird)
•
Sanford Ltd. (Sanford)
•
Talley’s Fisheries Ltd. (Talley’s)
•
Te Ohu Kaimoana (TOKM)
•
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)
21
Additional information containing catch and effort data from the 2006-07 fishing year and a
proposal for a directed fishing plan, were provided by DWG. These are included in
Appendices 2 and 3 respectively.
22
The views expressed by submitters fall into two broad categories – that taken by industry
and that by the environmental NGOs (ENGOs). NZRFC did not express support for any
particular option but considered that management decisions should be made with a view to
ensure an effective rebuild of orange roughy stocks within 10 years.
23
ENGOs submit that the biological characteristics of orange roughy, and the history of
orange roughy fisheries, demonstrate that it is particularly vulnerable to overfishing and that
a precautionary approach should be implemented for these fisheries. All ENGOs consider
that the TAC should be reduced to 1 tonne (Option 4) and Forest & Bird and ECO support
ensuring that all trawlers fishing in the ORH 7B QMA report on TCEPR forms.
24
Industry submissions (DWG, SeaFIC, Talley’s and TOKM) all agree that the existing TAC
is sustainable. While acknowledging that the information presented in the IPP is accurate,
they consider that the analysis suggesting concern at the state of the fishery was flawed.
Both DWG and Talley’s provided additional information in support of an alternative
interpretation of the information presented in the IPP. An analysis of the industry assertions
and the information they provide are examined below.
25
More generally, the ENGOs all submitted on the need to consider the environmental effects
of orange roughy fisheries, particularly in regard to benthic impacts (ECO, Forest & Bird
and WWF) but also in regard to seabirds and marine mammals (WWF); and deepwater
sharks and other non-target fish species (Forest & Bird). In relation to benthic impacts all
ENGOs contend that neither the BPAs, nor the seamount closures, mitigate the current
impact of trawl fisheries.
Page 132 of 397
26
Analysis of the best available information, including that provided in submissions, is
included in the body of this paper. The positions of industry and ENGOs on the appropriate
interpretation of this information are included for your consideration.
Background
27
Quota Management Area (QMA) ORH 7B covers an area off the west coast of the South
Island from near Westport to south of Jackson Head (Figure 1). Orange roughy occur
throughout the QMA and are thought to constitute a single stock. It is likely that the stock
is distinct from the Challenger and Puysegur fisheries to the north and south respectively.
28
The fishery developed from May 1985, with a rapid increase in the following year when
aggregations of spawning orange roughy were targeted. The vast majority of orange roughy
taken in ORH 7B has been targeted and this remains the case with targeted orange roughy
fishing accounting for in excess of 98% of the in the 2003-04 to 2005-06 fishing years.
29
Reported landings reached a maximum of 1,763 tonnes in 1985-86 (Table 1). Catches in
1992–93 to 1994–95 were well below the TAC of 1,708 t. The TAC was subsequently
reduced to 430 t for the 1995–96 fishing year, but was only reached for the 1995–96 and
1996–97 fishing years. Following a new stock assessment undertaken in 2001, the TAC was
further reduced in the 2001–02 fishing year to 110 t to reflect the best estimate of current
yield under an MCY strategy (110 t with 95% confidence limits of 80 – 180 t). The TAC
has remained at this level.
30
Over the course of the fishery there has also been a reduction in the average size of vessels
prosecuting the fishery and it is now dominated by small (approximately 25 m) inshore
vessels. Fourteen vessels have recorded orange roughy catch from ORH 7B between 200304 and 2005-06, although five vessels, all from different companies, dominate the catch.
Following the reduction of the TAC to 110 t in 2001-02 there was a drop in the number of
vessel days and tows. In recent years catch rates (both catch per tow and catch per hour)
have remained low, with their mean values in the 2003-04 to 2005-06 fishing years less than
10% of their values at the start of the fishery. Although only available from vessels
reporting on TCEPR forms, which form a small component of the ORH 7B fleet in recent
years, it also appears that the average distance towed had increased to more than twice that
in the late 1990s by 2005-06.
31
Historically most effort and catch in the ORH 7B fishery has been concentrated in the
winter spawning period (June and July) with a much smaller, secondary peak in catch and
effort in September and October. Since 1997–98, however, catch has tended to be more
evenly spread throughout the year.
32
The geographical distribution of effort has also changed over the course of the fishery. In
the early years of the fishery, effort was concentrated in a very small area in the Cook
Canyon which returned high catch rates. Effort became more dispersed in 1992–93 and
relatively high catches were taken in the Moeraki Canyon to the south in 1992–93 and
1993–94. Fishers have subsequently ranged widely across the QMA. Catch rates have
decreased as the fishery dispersed, and have been low throughout ORH 7B from 1997-98 to
2005-06, with very few catches over 5 t.
Table 1. Reported landings (t) of orange roughy and TACs (t) for ORH 7B from 1983–84 to 2005–06.
Page 133 of 397
Fishing year
Reported landings
1983–84*
2
1984–85*
282
1985–86*
1 763
1986–87*
1 446
1987–88†
1 413
1988–89†
1 750
1989–90†
1 711
1990–91†
1 683
1991–92†
1 604
1992–93†
1 139
1993–94†
701
1994–95†
290
1995–96†
446
425
1996−97†
330
1997−98†
405
1998−99†
1999–00†
284
2000–01†
161
2001–02†
95
2002–03†
90
2003–04†
119
2004–05†
106
2005-06†
77
2006-07‡
124
* FSU data † QMS data ‡ Preliminary analysis by DWG
TAC
–
–
1 558
1 558
1 558
1 708
1 708
1 708
1 708
1 708
1 708
1 708
430
430
430
430
430
430
110
110
110
110
110
110
Stock assessment
33
The most recent stock assessment was carried out in 2004. Biomass was estimated to be
17% B0 (95% confidence interval 14-23%) when CPUE was assumed to be directly
proportional to abundance. For orange roughy BMSY is considered to be 30% B0.
34
The standardised CPUE data series was updated in 2007 to include data derived from the
fishing years up to and including 2005-06. A plot of the standardised CPUE indices 56 are
shown in figure 2.
56
The change in fleet composition to smaller vessels has also resulted in a change in the way catch is reported with
Catch Effort Landing Returns (CELR) dominant in recent years and Trawl Catch Effort Processing Returns (TCEPR)
more prevalent in the earlier part of the fishery. The period when both form types were in operation has been used to
scale the CPUE index to allow a meaningful comparison across years
Page 134 of 397
2.5
x
CPUE index
2.0
x
1.5
x
1.0
x x
0.5
x
x
x
x
x
x x
0.0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Fishing year
Figure 2:
The CPUE indices based on: (i) TCEPR data (solid line and crosses) covering 1985–6 to
1996–97, and (ii) CELR data (triangles and dashed line) covering 1990–91 to 2005–06. The
CELR index has been scaled so that it has the same mean value as the TCEPR index in the
years that they overlap.
35
An updated stock assessment was attempted in 2007 with the addition of catch data up to
2005-06, and the new standardised CPUE indices. The draft assessment returned a similar
result to that from the 2004 assessment and showed a slow rebuild over the last five years.
The Deepwater Fisheries Assessment Working Group (Deepwater FAWG) considered that
this rebuild was driven by the model’s recruitment assumptions and was not supported by
the CPUE data, which instead showed a stable trend. On the basis that the model was
insensitive to the recent CPUE data, and predicted a rebuild that was not supported by any
observations in the fishery, the assessment was rejected by the Deepwater FAWG.
36
The TCEPR series is based on catch per tow and the CELR series used daily catch. As the
average tow length in recent years is significantly longer than that in the early years of the
fishery, the indices may underestimate a decline in catch rate at a finer temporal scale such
as catch per hour.
Rationale for management Options
37
The 2007 Plenary report concludes that no estimate of current biomass is available, although
it is likely that the biomass of the stock is below that which can support the maximum
sustainable yield (BMSY) as catch rates have not increased over the last 5 years despite a
large reduction in the annual removals from the stock, and the last assessment indicated that
the stock was at 17% B0. The Plenary further states that it is not known if catches at the
level of the current TAC will allow the stock to move towards a size that will support MSY.
38
The rejection of the stock assessment this year places greater emphasis on the CPUE data
series in deriving an appropriate management response. There are well documented
problems with using CPUE indices to track abundance in aggregating species such as
Page 135 of 397
orange roughy (i.e. fishers targeting aggregations are able to retain high catch rates even if
the overall spatial extent of the aggregations decrease as the stock declines). However, it
may have more utility in this fishery in recent times if, as industry contend (see for example
the Talley’s submission), the majority of effort is now expended on the flats rather than the
denser aggregations found in the canyons, and fishers no longer concentrate their effort in
the peak spawning months of June and July. The CPUE indices, in conjunction with the
under-catch of the TAC in recent years, suggest that there are grounds for concern over the
state of the ORH 7B stock. This information was analysed in the IPP and prompted several
submissions from industry.
39
While industry acknowledged that the information presented in the IPP is an accurate
reflection of the fishery-dependent data, it takes issue with the conclusions drawn as to the
state of the ORH 7B fishery. Talley’s and DWG provide additional information in support
of an alternative analysis of the data, and DWG have provided a preliminary descriptive
analysis of catch data from the current fishing year. Specific issues they raise, in
conjunction with additional information provided in support of their analysis, are discussed
below.
CPUE analysis up to 2005-06
40
The CPUE information shows that there has been a dispersion of effort across the QMA and
throughout the fishing year, suggesting that it may be increasingly difficult for fishers to
locate significant aggregations of orange roughy. The increase in trawl duration (although,
as noted by DWG, only available from the small number of vessels reporting on TCEPR
data) and the decrease in catch per tow and catch per hour further support this position.
Although the TAC was reduced to 100 t in 2001 to rebuild the stock, the standardised CPUE
indices up to 2005-06 do not indicate that the predicted rebuild occurred and rather show a
stable trend.
41
Talley’s provided additional information in support of their view that there have been
significant changes in the way the fishery is prosecuted in recent years. It estimates that,
while approximately 90% of ORH 7B was taken from aggregations in the earlier years of
the fishery, 90% is now taken from flat areas where there are fewer fish. In the IPP, MFish
interpreted this change from targeting aggregations as an indication that such aggregations
may no longer exist, or exist in a diminished capacity.
42
While Talley’s accept that the ‘aggregations’ of fish have reduced, both Talley’s and DWG
offer an alternative scenario to at least partially explain the change in where orange roughy
in ORH 7B are targeted.
i)
Talley’s submits that, subsequent to the major TAC reductions, there was an exodus
of experienced orange roughy skippers from the fishery. Most of the current
skippers prefer long tows on flat grounds rather than venturing into canyons where
orange roughy aggregate, but where considerably more skill is required to fish
successfully;
ii)
The exodus of fishers from ORH 7B has also left a small number of vessels (3-5)
active in the fishery. Industry contends that this has resulted in fewer “eyes” on the
grounds meaning that the fish are less easily located and particularly so given the
focus of the fishery in recent years on flat grounds where very large areas need to be
traversed to locate the fish;
Page 136 of 397
iii)
DWG contends that fish on these flat grounds are typically found hard on the bottom
and are therefore seldom evident on echo-sounders, adding to the difficulty in
locating them;
iv)
DWG also contends that the fishery is now prosecuted mainly by owner operators
who are dependent on purchase of ACE. This is expensive and often only made
available after the peak fishing season (i.e. after the spawn in June-July). This
provides another barrier to fishers venturing into the canyon areas to fish the
spawning aggregations.
43
As a result of these points, industry contends that tows are longer and catch rates are lower.
Consequently industry contends that it is not valid to compare the resultant CPUE series
with the earlier series in this fishery
44
MFish accepts that there has been a significant change in the way ORH 7B has been
prosecuted since the TAC was significantly reduced in the mid 1990s, and this is most
clearly seen subsequent to the 1997-98 fishing year. Prior to this date an average of 83% of
the catch was taken during the June-July spawning period but in subsequent years this has
averaged 52%, supporting the industry contention that the targeting of aggregations has
decreased.
45
There is also some evidence to support the view that fishers are fishing more after the peak
June-July period. On average only 6% of the annual catch was taken in August and
September up to 1997-98 but in the subsequent period this figure increased to 20%. It
remains unclear however why ACE would be withheld until late in the fishing year given
that the ORH 7B fishery is virtually all targeted and consequently ACE is not required to
balance bycatch.
46
In terms of the experience of skippers prosecuting the fishery, some insight is possible by
analysing vessel participation. Of the five vessels that have caught the bulk of the TAC
over the five years up to 2005-06, one has been involved in the fishery since the 1989/90
fishing year, one since 1990/91, two since 1998/99, and the most recent arrival began
fishing in ORH 7B in 2000/01. Two of these vessels can therefore be considered to have
been involved in ORH 7B in at least the latter years of the fisheries peak while the
remaining vessels have clearly arrived subsequent to the sharp decline in catches and catch
limits. It remains unclear whether the skippers have changed on the two vessels that have
been involved for a considerable time in the fishery, although records indicate that this is
likely.
47
MFish agrees with the industry contention that changes in the fishery means that the raw
CPUE data from the early years in the fishery cannot be directly compared with that in later
years. For that reason the Deepwater Fisheries Assessment Working Group (Deepwater
FAWG) has split the CPUE indices into two series based on the dominant type of data
collected (i.e. based on form type). The transition period has been used to scale the two
time series to enable comparison between them. It is also important to note that
considerable effort has been made to ‘standardise’ the CPUE data - that is to compensate for
changes in vessels, season and area fished etc. over the course of the fishery to maximise the
utility of the time series in indexing changes in stock abundance over time. While it is not
possible to fully compensate for all the subtleties of variation in the way the fishery has
been prosecuted over the years, comparison of standardised CPUE data over the course of
the fishery is an important component of the best available information.
Page 137 of 397
2006-07 catch and effort data
48
While industry submissions endeavoured to explain the observed CPUE data up to and
including the 2005-06 fishing year, DWG also made a late submission that included catch
data from the 2006-07 fishing year (Appendix 2.).
49
DWG concludes from this data that in the most recent fishing year;
•
Mean daily catch rate reached a 10-year high
•
Mean tow duration declined to the 1995-96 level
•
Over 80% of the effort and 90% of the catch was taken during June and July
50
It appears from a preliminary analysis that the figures presented by DWG are an accurate
reflection of the data and that the changes in unstandardised catch and effort data are real 57.
The data presented suggest that, at least for the current fishing year, increased catch rates are
possible. However caution is warranted as MFish only received this information on 28
August 2007 and has not had an opportunity to fully analyse it. MFish also note that the
data available has not been verified 58 and that a fully verified data set for the 2006-07
fishing year is unlikely to be available until February 2008.
51
The data represent a significant change in the way the fishery was prosecuted in 2006-07.
Of the three vessels, one is new to the fishery and is larger and more powerful than the
vessels that have dominated the fishery over recent years. The greatest change however is in
the percentage of catch taken during June and July when orange roughy aggregate to spawn.
According to the DWG figures, 110 t was taken over this period in 2006-07 compared to an
average of 49 tonnes between 2001-02 and 2005-06. MFish considers that the catch and
effort data presented from 2006-07 cannot be compared to the standardized CPUE time
series depicted in figure 2 because of the change in the way the fishery operated this year.
Given how much the fishery has changed, MFish consider it unlikely that a standardised
analysis will improve this situation.
52
The DWG contention that these figures indicate greater abundance of orange roughy on
traditional towlines cannot be verified. MFish considers that the time at which a particular
towline is fished may determine how much fish is taken from it. Consequently both
temporal and spatial aspects would need to be considered when evaluating if a towline
fished in 2006-07 was comparable to one fished in previous years.
Under-catch of the TACC
53
The IPP noted that the TAC, although only 110 t, has been undercaught in four of the five
years since it was reduced to this level, and in the 2005-06 fishing year the TAC was
undercaught by 30%. Industry argues that there are good reasons for the TAC undercatch,
which are not linked to a sustainability concern for the fishery.
57
As of 3 September 2007, records show that estimated catch of ORH was in excess of 95 t in ORH 7B and that the
vessels noted by DWG as taking most of the catch did indeed dominate the fishery. MFish cannot at this time confirm
catch of the remaining 27 t that DWG indicates has been taken this year as this information has yet to be entered into
the fisheries information system.
58
Accurate reporting is a statutory requirement. The verification alluded to here is the normal checks undertaken by
FishServe to correct data entry errors, issues with illegible or incomplete forms etc.
Page 138 of 397
i)
Talley’s submits that some ACE fishers choose to retain percentages of their ACE as
‘under fishing entitlement’ and that this further distorts the relationship between
catch levels and stock status.
ii)
Industry considers that a 10% under or over catch is to be expected and note that,
apart from the 2005-06 year, catch has been generally within this expected range –
ACE has been 90% caught on average.
iii)
Industry has also provided specific information relating to the 2005/06 fishing year.
Industry submits that the weather in ORH 7B during June and July of 2006 was
particularly bad and vessels lost out on the opportunity to fish during the spawning
period when catch rates are highest. Consequently the ACE for that year was
undercaught.
iv)
Industry considers that the primary reason for the under-catch over the last five years
has been the very small ACE parcel sizes. As an example it cites the current fishing
year where there are 43 quota owners, 38 of whom own less than two tonnes, 36
hold less than one tonne and 29 own less than 200 kg. Industry submits that these
parcels are not economical to fish and, in many cases, are too small to justify the
costs of ACE trading.
Talley’s and DWG also contend that the timing of the hoki season may have an
impact on how much of the available ACE is fished in ORH 7B. Orange roughy
form a small proportion of both the catch and effort of the vessels operating in ORH
7B. All of these vessels form part of the west coast hoki fleet and once this fishery
commences vessels concentrate their effort on the hoki ground.
54
v)
Industry also contends that high fuel cost in recent years has made it increasingly
uneconomical to search for fish, reducing the amount of effort and therefore catch by
some operators.
vi)
The DWG analysis of catch in 2006-07 suggests that the available ACE has been
fully caught, and that 90% of this was taken in the June to July period.
MFish acknowledges that fishers do not have to fully fish their ACE entitlement with a
maximum of 10% of a fishers ACE being able to be carried forward to the next fishing year.
Fishers may also choose to leave ACE in excess of this 10%, unfished if they so choose,
although if it was economically viable to fish the ACE, MFish would anticipate that most
fishers would choose to do so. Further analysis, taking into account the ACE carried
forward each year, shows that total ACE available for fishing in any one year (i.e. ACE
derived from the TAC + that carried forward from the previous fishing year – that carried
forward into the next fishing year) was fully fished in 2003-04 and 2004-05 but under
caught in the remaining years since the TAC was reduced to the present level. In 2005-06
the total ACE available for fishing was undercaught by 25%.
Table 2: Reported landings (t) of orange roughy, TACs (t) and ACE available for ORH 7B from 2001–02
to 2005–06.
Fishing year
Reported landings
TAC
ACE available for
fishing
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005-06
2006-07*
95
90
119
106
77
124
110
110
110
110
110
110
104
106
119
107
103
121
Page 139 of 397
Percentage of ACE undercaught (-ve) or over-caught
(+ve)
- 9%
- 15%
0
-1%
- 25 %
2%
* Based on preliminary analysis provided by DWG
55
It appears from the DWG analysis that the ACE available has been fully fished in the
current fishing year and this may suggest that the result in 2005-06 was an anomaly.
However, given that the vast majority (90%) of this catch occurred late in the fishing year
there appears to have been a change in fishing pattern meaning that it may not be
appropriate to compare the latest figures directly against the time series shown in table 2. It
is possible that a change in the way this fishery was prosecuted in 2006-07 may have been
influenced by a desire by industry to demonstrate that concerns over the state of the fishery
are unfounded. Similarly the possibility that you may reduce the TAC or effectively close
the fishery, signalled through the release of the IPP, may have encouraged fishers to fully
catch the TAC in the current fishing year as, if the TAC is reduced, no unfished ACE could
be carried over into 2007-08. These results do suggest, however, that it remains possible to
fully catch the TAC within ORH 7B.
56
On average 49 tonnes has been taken in June and July over the period 2001-02 to 2005-06.
Not surprisingly, in the years when the TAC has been undercaught (2001-02, 2002-03 and
2005-06), the amount of catch taken in June and July has also decreased. However, of these
years, the catch taken in June and July in 2005-06 was the highest and was only slightly
below the average over the 5 year period. This suggests that bad weather in June and July
in 2005-06 does not explain the under-catch in that year.
57
The preliminary results from DWG for 2006-07 suggest that 90% of the total catch, or
approximately 110 tonnes, has been taken between June and July in the fishing year to date.
This represents a significant change in the way the fishery is prosecuted.
58
The quota ownership in ORH 7B has been fairly stable in recent years with four key quota
owners owning approximately 88% of total quota shares over the last five fishing years,
with their individual quota holding ranging from 14 to 28%. TOKM owned an additional
10% until immediately prior to the start of the 2005-06 when it began to allocate ORH 7B
quota to iwi. In September 2005 approximately 1.3% of ORH 7B quota was allocated to 6
iwi and a further 1.2% was allocated to 11 iwi in March 2006. A further 2.6% was allocated
to 17 iwi organisations prior to the start of the current fishing year.
59
MFish considers that the allocation of ORH 7B quota to iwi has had little effect on the ACE
available to fishers. There is an active ACE market in ORH 7B with in excess of 125 ACE
trades taking place during the 2005-06 fishing year. There appears to be little barrier to
ACE trades in terms of the size of the ACE parcel traded with approximately 100 trades
being less than 1 tonne and half of these being less than 100kg.
60
Even if these small iwi holdings were not traded they would have little effect on the ACE
available to fishers. Effectively 2.5% of the total quota was allocated in small lots to iwi
that may have affected the ACE availability to fishers during that fishing year. If it is
assumed that none of the ACE derived from this quota was available to fishers, the ACE
available to fishers would have decreased from 103 t to 100 t for the 2005-06 fishing year,
and would still be undercaught by 23%. Even if the ACE derived from the further 2.6% of
quota allocated to iwi late in the 2005-06 fishing year was not available to fishers in that
year the effective under-catch would decrease to 21% - still a significant amount.
61
Fuel costs have undoubtedly increased in recent years and this has certainly had an impact
on the profitability of fishing. However, industry also confirms that fishers are choosing to
Page 140 of 397
fish on the flats where long and presumably costly tows are required. If significant
aggregations of orange roughy exist it would seem that rising fuel costs provide an incentive
for skippers to target these fish.
Other sources of fisheries related mortality
62
ORH 7B is the only orange roughy fishery of any size that does not have an allowance for
other sources of fishing related mortality and MFish considers that it is appropriate to
consider setting such an allowance.
63
The 2006 Plenary noted that reported catch overruns are likely to occur in ORH 7B because
of fish loss from torn nets, and discarding of small or damaged fish. There is no estimate of
the size of the overrun, but it means that actual fishing related mortality is greater than
reported catch. The Plenary report further states, however, that although overruns have not
been added in the catch history for stock assessment purposes, this will have no affect as
long as future overruns are similar to those in the past.
64
The nature of the fishing effort in ORH 7B has changed over time. On average tows are
now longer and towing speeds are higher which may increase incidental mortality relating
to fishing.
Assessment of Management Options
Total allowable catch
65
Although no stock assessment for ORH 7B was confirmed through the 2007 working group
process, the 2007 Plenary report constitutes the best available information on the status of
the stock. That report states that, despite uncertainty, the biomass of ORH 7B is considered
likely to be below BMSY. On that basis MFish considers that the TAC should be set under s
13 (2)(b) - that is the TAC should be set such that it enables the level of the stock to be
altered –
i)
In a way and at a rate that will result in the stock being restored to or above a
level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, having regard to the
interdependence of stocks; and
ii)
Within a period appropriate to the stock, having regard to the biological
characteristics of the stock and any environmental conditions affecting the
stock.
66
The key consideration in determining appropriate management action in this fishery is
whether the existing TAC is appropriate – that is, whether it is allowing the stock to rebuild
and if it is, whether the rate of rebuild is appropriate to the stock. The Plenary report
provides no guidance on this point. In considering the appropriate way and rate of rebuild
you must have regard to social, cultural and economic factors that you consider relevant.
When considering a large TAC cut or effective closure of a fishery you must seriously
consider both the costs and benefits of doing so.
67
MFish considers that there are two broad approaches open to you– retain or reduce the
current catch limits. If you consider that the existing TAC is not allowing the stock to
rebuild within an appropriate timeframe you should reduce the TAC.
Page 141 of 397
Section 13 (2)
Stock assessment data
68
There is no new stock assessment on which to base a determination as to whether the
existing TAC will enable the stock to rebuild. An updated stock assessment was attempted
in 2007 with the addition of catch data up to 2005-06, and the new standardised CPUE
indices. The draft assessment returned a similar result to that from the 2004 assessment and
showed a slow rebuild over the last five years. The Deepwater FAWG considered that this
rebuild was driven by the model’s recruitment assumptions and was not supported by the
CPUE data, which instead showed no increase. On the basis that the model was insensitive
to the recent CPUE data, and predicted a rebuild that was not supported by any observations
in the fishery, the assessment was rejected by the Working Group.
69
The most recent completed stock assessment was carried out in 2004 and is reported in the
Plenary. Biomass was estimated to be 17% B0 (95% confidence interval 14-23%) when
CPUE was assumed to be directly proportional to abundance. For orange roughy BMSY is
considered to be 30% B0.
70
The existing TAC was derived under an MCY strategy based on the 2001 stock assessment
and DWG consider that this constitutes the best available information and, consequently, the
TAC should remain at this level. MFish disagrees with this position. Additional sources of
information, and possible interpretations of this information are discussed below.
71
In 2001, the stock assessment model predicted a rebuild subsequent to the reduction of the
TAC to the present level. The predicted rebuild was not seen in the CPUE data in either
2004 or 2007.
72
Standardised CPUE indices are available up to and including the 2005-06 fishing year.
While MFish acknowledges that there are problems with using CPUE data as a basis for
making management decisions for orange roughy, they may have more utility in ORH 7B
where, as noted by industry, the fishery is no longer primarily focussed on dense spawning
aggregations. The CPUE data suggest a sustainability concern for the stock if the existing
TAC is retained. This position is supported by the spatial and temporal changes that have
occurred in the fishery in recent years suggesting that fishers may be finding it increasingly
difficult to catch the TAC.
73
Industry has argued that there are other reasons for these signals and that catch rates from
the fishery do not provide a reliable index of abundance. Industry support alternative
interpretations of the catch and effort data and have a different view of the appropriate
management response. While it appears that catches from the 2006-07 fishing year to date
provide some support for the industry view, on balance MFish considers that industry
arguments do not fully explain the CPUE trend, and the observed under-catch of the
available ACE up to 2005-06. MFish also considers that the way the fishery was prosecuted
in 2006-07 was different from the previous five years. The unstandardised data presented
by DWG is therefore not directly comparable to the standardised CPUE series shown in
figure 2.
74
While the Plenary concludes that the current stock size is most likely below BMSY, it is not
known if catches at the level of the current TACC will allow the stock to move towards a
size that will support the maximum sustainable yield or if so, how long it will take. If you
Page 142 of 397
consider that the risk is unacceptable that the existing TAC is not moving the stock towards
BMSY, or is not moving the stock towards BMSY at an appropriate rate (having regard to
relevant social, cultural and economic factors), then you must reduce the TAC. Given the
uncertainty in information on the status of the stock, and more generally in relation to the
biological characteristics of orange roughy, reducing the TAC would represent a cautious
approach to managing ORH 7B in favour of long term sustainability.
75
Options 3 and 4 are available to you if consider it necessary to reduce the TACC. Given the
already low TAC, MFish considers that setting the TAC at the intermediate level below the
current TAC, as proposed under Option 3, may not provide a meaningful or reasonable
management response. MFish notes that no support for this option was provided by
submitters, although fishers may prefer this option over closing the fishery.
76
Administration requirements in regard to the maintenance of quota shares dictate that a
fishery managed under the QMS should not be completely closed to commercial fishing.
Thus Option 4 retains a one tonne TAC.
77
Closing a fishery (Option 4) is not an option that should be undertaken lightly. For this
option to be chosen, you must consider that no level of commercial take will allow the stock
to rebuild at an acceptable rate.
78
Existing information on the status of the stock is based on fishery-dependent data and the
value of the fishery is such that the collection of fishery-independent data are unlikely to be
economically viable. Closure of the fishery would mean that no information would be
collected and there would be little prospect of the fishery reopening in the short to medium
term. Additional measures to collect better fishery-dependent information through the use
of TCEPR forms are included as a requirement under Option 2 and 3 and are provided for
your consideration later in the paper.
Section 13 (3)
79
Section 13 (3) requires that, in considering the way and the rate that the stock may be
moved towards a level that can produce MSY under s 13 (2)(b), the Minister shall have
regard to such social, cultural and economic factors as he or she considers relevant.
80
Social, cultural and economic aspects of the fishery are discussed in the following sections.
MFish requested that industry provide additional information on social, cultural and
economic factors relevant to this decision through their submissions. No additional
information was forthcoming.
Economic factors
Value of the fishery
81
A conservative estimate of the landed value of the fishery may be determined from the port
price of orange roughy landed from ORH 7B. The port price for 2005-06 and 2006-07 was
$3.35 which equates to a value of $368,500 if the TACC was fully caught 59. Since the
majority of orange roughy is exported a better estimation of value may be derived from
export earnings. On the basis of export value (all product states) 110 t of orange roughy is
worth approximately $498,300 60.
59
60
Estimated by multiplying the port price ($3.35/kg for 2005-06) by 110 t.
Export value was estimated by multiplying the export price by 110 t. In 2006, 4,601 tonnes of orange roughy fillets
Page 143 of 397
82
Under option 3 the TACC would be reduced by 60 t. Based on port price this is worth
$201,000 and on the basis of export value it is worth approximately $271,800.
Vessels in the fishery
83
Over the last three completed fishing years there have been 5 vessels that have taken in
excess of 98% of the orange roughy from ORH 7B with the total catch fairly evenly spread
between them. All are small vessels with an average registered length of approximately
25m. Three of the vessels are based in Nelson, one in Greymouth and one in Wellington
with the proportion of their annual effort expended in the statistical areas that comprise the
ORH 7B QMA varying substantially between vessels. Two vessels spend over 50% of the
year within these statistical areas, with the vessel based in Greymouth spending 99% of its
time there.
84
Orange roughy taken from ORH 7B is virtually all targeted (98-99% over the period 200304 to 2005-06) with the remaining 1-2% taken primarily in the targeted hoki and hake
fisheries. For each of the vessels which dominate the ORH 7B fishery, including that based
in Greymouth, orange roughy from ORH 7B represents less than 3% of their annual catch
by greenweight over the last three fishing years. Hoki contributes a significant component
of the total catch for all of these vessels (between 25-53% greenweight) with the remainder
of their catch dominated by red cod, black and smooth oreo, barracouta, squid and orange
roughy from other QMAs, although the contribution of each of these species to their total
catch varies by vessel. As a consequence, your decision on Hoki will also affect these
vessels.
Social factors
85
The vessels operating in the ORH 7B fishery in recent years employ a small number of crew
(typically 5-6 each) and the majority operate across a number of QMAs. Only one vessel is
located locally and, while this vessel operates almost exclusively in the statistical areas
which comprise the ORH 7B QMA, orange roughy provides only a small proportion of its
total catch.
Cultural factors
86
There is no known Customary Maori interest in the fishery and no other cultural factors that
MFish considers are relevant to the Ministers determination under section 13(3).
87
Overall, MFish recognises that ORH 7B is a small fishery, and although orange roughy are
a high value fish, the low TAC effectively limits the returns available from the fishery. On
balance MFish considers that no community or individual relies significantly on the ORH
7B fishery for their economic, social and/or cultural wellbeing.
TACC and Allowances
88
There are no known Maori customary or recreational fisheries for orange roughy and no
catch entitlement is currently provided, or proposed, for Maori customary or recreational
interests.
(fresh and frozen) were sold for $72.93 million. The standard conversion factor for fillets is 3.5, so 4,601 tonnes of
fillets is estimated to equal 16,103 tonnes of orange roughy (greenweight). Therefore, in fillet form, the average price
is $4.53 per greenweight kilogram.
Page 144 of 397
89
No allowance is currently provided for other sources of fishing related mortality. MFish has
typically recommended a 5% allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality in
trawl fisheries generally and this figure has been used in a number of other orange roughy
fisheries. ORH 7B is the only orange roughy fishery with significant catch for which no
such allowance has been provided.
90
The Plenary has stated that catch overruns will not have an impact on estimates of the status
of the stock as long as future overruns remain similar to those in the past. Increases in
average tow length and towing speeds may cause an increase in incidental fishing related
mortality although this may be offset by smaller catches per tow minimising the chance of
lost catch.
91
MFish considers that it is appropriate to provide an allocation for other sources of fishing
related mortality for the ORH 7B stock to better reflect the impact of fishing and to provide
a basis for taking into account any changes in fishing related incidental mortality in the
future. MFish proposes that, consistent with other trawl fisheries, the allowance be set at
5% of the TACC at this time. If the TACC of 110 t is retained, this equates to an allowance
of 5.5 tonnes (Option 2) and if the TACC is reduced to 50 t this equates to an allowance of
2.5 tonnes (Option 3). If the fishery is effectively closed, a zero tonne allocation will be
required (Option 4).
92
Option 2 is intended to better reflect the current level of fishing related mortality (from both
fish landed and other sources of fishing related mortality) in the ORH 7B fishery. Under
this option MFish proposes to add the allowance to the existing TACC, increasing the TAC
to 115.5 tonnes.
Additional considerations
Future stock assessments
93
Stock assessments in ORH 7B rely on CPUE indices and closure of the fishery under
Option 4 would mean that no such data would be available in future. Once closed, the cost
of collecting stock assessment information to support the possible reopening of the fishery
would appear to outweigh the economic value that may be derived from it.
94
If closed, it is unlikely that the ORH 7B fishery would re-open in the short to medium term.
Reporting requirements
95
The stock assessment for 2007 was rejected by the Working Group and there appears to be
no clear solutions to the problems associated with the models’ recruitment assumptions and
its insensitivity to the recent CPUE data. Consequently MFish does not consider that it will
be possible to undertake a new stock assessment for ORH 7B in the short to medium term.
CPUE indices derived from vessel catch and effort reports will therefore be relied on to
monitor the status of the stock.
96
CELR forms provide daily records by statistical area or general location and include number
of trawls, total trawl duration and estimated catch on a daily basis. TCEPR forms provide
greater spatial and temporal resolution of catch and effort information by recording tow-bytow information including location, time, trawl length and estimated catch.
Page 145 of 397
97
Regulations require that all vessels over 28m in length use TCEPR forms but the smaller
vessels which dominate the ORH 7B fishery, unless advised otherwise, must use CELR
forms.
98
If you choose Option 2 or 3, MFish will ensure that fishers targeting orange roughy in ORH
7B use TCEPR forms regardless of the size of the vessel. The additional spatial and
temporal resolution provided by TCEPR forms would enhance the utility of CPUE data for
stock assessment and management purposes.
99
Decisions concerning the manner and form in which records are to be kept or provided may
be specified by the Chief Executive. As such, specific reporting requirements are not a
condition of any TAC decision that you make. Unless the fishery is effectively closed, the
Chief Executive will require all vessels targeting orange roughy within ORH 7B to report on
TCEPR forms.
Directed fishing
100
Discussions at the 2007 Deepwater FAWG meetings identified a broad level of unease with the
stock assessments for a number of orange roughy stocks. A key concern was that standardised
CPUE series using currently available information may not be directly related to fish
abundance, although this data has more utility in ORH 7B compared to other fisheries as it is
less focussed on aggregations.
101
In its submission on the 2007 IPP, SeaFIC raise the possibility of orange roughy fishing
following a ‘survey-like’ mode. Under this proposal, a vessel’s fishing plan would be designed
to maximise the value of the CPUE data – that is, the vessel would fish to a plan that broadly
specified where, when and how it fished. SeaFIC consider that reliably interpretable catch
rate data could be achieved by commitment to a clear catching plan. It also suggests that,
given that fishing is carried out by very few vessels, establishment of a standardised fishing
plan might be contemplated.
102
While ECO supports closing the fishery for several years, it also suggests that, during this
period of closure, a management and research regime be established to effectively monitor
the fishery.
103
A directed fishing approach in ORH 7B was also supported by DWG, and the quota owners in
this fishery, including Talley’s, have instructed DWG to co-operate with MFish in
constructing and implementing a co-ordinated harvest strategy for the fishery over the next
3-5 years with the following objectives:
i) To ensure viable ACE parcels are made available to vessels at the start of the
season
ii) A co-ordinated operational approach is implemented to optimise catches and
increase catch rates
iii) To obtain additional and improved information from the fishery through:
-Reporting using TCEPR forms (i.e. as opposed to CELR forms), to improve
the spatial and temporal resolution of the catch and effort information and to
enhance the value of the CPUE time series for management application;
Page 146 of 397
-Collecting biological information from the catches for input into the stock
assessment process.
iv) To develop a consistent set of fishery data over the next 5 years which can then
be used as a basis to inform the management of this stock.
104
It appears that points i) and ii) above may, at least partially, have been implemented by
industry in the current fishing year.
105
Subsequent to its submission, DWG has assessed the feasibility of such a plan, and the
initial output is included in Appendix 2. MFish considers this approach is worthy of further
discussion for orange roughy stocks generally. However, MFish has reservations over its
utility for informing management decisions in a fishery such as ORH 7B. Of primary
concern is that the low TAC, and small number of vessels, limits the number of data points
(i.e. individual tows) that can be collected making the utility of any subsequent analysis
questionable.
106
Industry have indicated that if, dependent on your decision, there remains an operational
ORH 7B fishery, they are prepared to continue to develop a directed fishing approach and
consider that it could be put in place for the 2007-08 fishing year. It is open to you to
request that such an approach be adopted. Given the concerns noted above, MFish do not
consider that this initiative can be considered to mitigate risks to the sustainability of the
fishery.
107
In making your decision you must first decide on an appropriate TAC, allowances and
TACC for the ORH 7B fishery. If the TACC is greater than one tonne, then you may decide
whether or not to request that MFish work with industry to develop a directed fishing plan.
Environmental considerations
108
MFish is in the process of developing environmental standards - including a seabird
standard and a benthic impact standard - to ensure that statutory obligations to avoid remedy
or mitigate the adverse effects of fishing are met. These standards will ultimately be used to
inform fisheries plan development.
109
Key environmental issues in relation to the ORH 7B fishery are discussed below. In general
the environmental impacts discussed are, to an extent, proportional to effort in this fishery.
Effort in terms of vessel days has significantly decreased over the course of the fishery as
catch limits have decreased. The trend of reducing vessel days has been partially offset in
recent years as tow duration has increased.
110
Specific environmental issues raised in submissions include;
Finfish Bycatch
Forest & Bird expressed concern at the impact of orange roughy fishing on non-target fish
species. While a number of deepwater species that share similar habitat to orange roughy
are taken in the ORH 7B target fishery, the management proposals do not include an
increase in the orange roughy TAC. Consequently there should be no increase in finfish
bycatch under any of the proposed options. There should be a decrease if the TAC is
reduced, and finfish bycatch will be eliminated if the fishery is effectively closed.
Page 147 of 397
Shark Bycatch
Forest & Bird has also expressed concern at the impact of orange roughy fishing on highly
vulnerable deepwater sharks. While deepwater sharks are taken, they account for less than
1% of the bycatch in orange roughy fisheries. Issues in relation to the impact of fishing on
sharks generally are addressed in a specific national plan of action for sharks which is in
preparation by MFish.
Marine Mammals
The WWF submission touched on the impact on marine mammals. As no increase in the
TAC is contemplated, MFish considers that there should be no increase in marine mammal
interactions under any of the proposed options, and there should be a decrease if the TAC is
reduced. All marine mammal interactions will cease if the fishery is effectively closed.
Seabirds
Trawl fisheries for orange roughy are known to interact with seabirds and concern over this
impact was raised by WWF. Fishing-related mortalities of seabird species are known to
occur, although it is difficult to quantify the overall impact as knowledge of the population
characteristics of seabird species is typically limited. As no increase in the TAC is
contemplated, MFish considers that there should be no increase in seabird interactions under
any of the proposed options, there should be a decrease if the TAC is reduced, and seabird
interactions will be eliminated if the fishery is effectively closed.
Benthic impacts and coral bycatch
All ENGO submissions discussed the need to consider the benthic impacts of orange roughy
fisheries. Bottom trawling can affect fragile benthic invertebrate communities and two
initiatives are in place to address benthic impacts nationally. In 2001 the Minister initiated a
trawl closure covering a selection of 19 seamounts of varying size and depth within New
Zealand although none are within ORH 7B. In addition, further areas will be closed to
bottom trawling under the BPA proposal, including an area (Challenger South) which
partially overlaps the north-western extent of the ORH 7B QMA. While ENGOs contend
that neither the BPA proposal nor the seamount closures are sufficient to mitigate the
current impact of trawl fisheries MFish considers that these closures make a significant
contribution to the protection of a wide range of habitat types found in New Zealand’s EEZ.
MFish notes that the area over which the ORH 7B fishery is distributed has increased over
the life of the fishery although the catch limits have decreased significantly. On balance,
MFish considers that the management proposals should have no additional benthic impact
as no increase in orange roughy catch entitlements is proposed. Benthic impacts caused by
this fishery will reduce if the TAC is lowered, and will be eliminated altogether if ORH 7B
is closed.
Future management
111
A fisheries plan for orange roughy is proposed for implementation for the 2008-09 fishing
year. If, dependent on your decision, there remains an operational ORH 7B fishery, the
fisheries plan may include some or all of the following provisions for ORH 7B;
•
Further fleet rationalisation
•
Long-term approach to research requirements
•
Specified CPUE triggers for TAC adjustment
Page 148 of 397
Statutory Considerations
112
Statutory considerations in relation to sections 13(2) and 13(3) are central to your decision
in relation to ORH 7B and the implications of these sections on the options proposed in this
paper have been discussed at length above.
113
Additional legal obligations, and how they are applicable to your decision are included in
Appendix 1.
Page 149 of 397
APPENDIX 1
Statutory Considerations
114
In forming this management proposal, the following statutory considerations have been
taken into account:
a)
Sections 5(a) and (b) require the Act to be interpreted consistently with New
Zealand’s international obligations with respect to fishing and with the provisions of
the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. Provisions of
general international instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Fish Stocks Agreement have been implemented
through the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1996 and given effect to here. MFish
considers that issues relating to international obligations and the Settlement Act are
adequately addressed in the management options proposed.
b)
Section 8 of the Act describes the purpose of the Act as being to provide for the
utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability, and defines the
meanings of utilisation and sustainability. The management options presented seek
to achieve the purpose of the Act. Under Option 4 no utilisation is provided for.
This option is available if you determine that cessation of utilisation is required to
ensure the rebuild of the ORH 7B stock to a sustainable level and at an appropriate
rate.
c)
Sections 9(a) and (b) require you to take into account that associated or dependent
species (those that are not harvested) be maintained at or above a level that ensures
their long-term viability, and that the biological diversity of the aquatic environment
should be maintained.
Seabirds and marine mammals have been discussed in the body of the paper. Some
concern has also been raised regarding highly vulnerable deepwater sharks, but
sharks account for less than 1% of the bycatch in orange roughy fisheries. A specific
national plan of action for deepwater sharks is in preparation by MFish.
d)
Section 9(c) requires that habitat of particular importance for fisheries management
should be protected. Our knowledge of the distribution of such habitats is
fragmentary however some habitats that are understood to be important nationally
are protected from trawling under the seamount closures and the BPA initiative. No
seamount closures are included in ORH 7B. Of the BPAs, approximately 12,000
square kilometres of the Challenger South closure are included in ORH 7B.
e)
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. MFish considers that the information used to support the management
proposals are the best available information on the status of the ORH 7B stock.
There remains significant uncertainty in regard to what level of catch will allow the
stock to rebuild, and at what rate. MFish considers that the range of options
Page 150 of 397
presented will allow the decision maker to exercise his discretion with regard to
determining the appropriate degree of caution to apply in setting sustainability
measures.
f)
Section 11(1)(b) requires any existing controls under the Act to be taken into
account. For ORH 7B, the only measure that applies currently is a TACC.
g)
Section 11(1)(c) requires you to take into account the natural variability of the stock
when setting or varying any sustainability measure. Orange roughy year-to-year
biomass is not known to be highly variable.
h)
Sections 11(2)(a) and (b) require you to have regard to any provisions in any policy
statement or plan under the Resource Management Act 1991, or any management
strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1987, that are relevant to the setting of
any sustainability measure for the ORH 7B stock. MFish is not aware of any such
provisions that should be taken into account for ORH 7B.
i)
Section 11(2)(c) requires you to have regard to ss 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf
Marine Park Act 2000. This provision is not relevant to ORH 7B as it does not
apply to this QMA.
j)
Section 11(2A)(b) requires you to take into account any relevant fisheries plan
approved under the Act. There is no fisheries plan in operation that applies to ORH
7B.
k)
Sections 11(2A)(a) and (c) require that before setting or varying any sustainability
measure, you must take into account any conservation or fisheries service, or any
decision not to require such services. MFish does not consider that existing or
proposed services materially affect the proposals for the ORH 7B stock. No decision
has been made to require or not require a service in this fishery at this time.
l)
Section 21 requires you to allow for non-commercial Maori and recreational fishing
interests, and other sources of fishing-related mortality when setting or varying the
TACC. There are no known customary or recreational interests in ORH 7B and
other sources of fishing-related mortality have been considered in the paper. Section
21 also requires that any mätaitai reserve or closure/restriction under s 186A to
facilitate customary fishing be taken into account. There are no mätaitai reserves
and s 186A measures that intersect with the ORH 7B fishery. No area has been
closed or fishing method restricted (that affects the fishery within ORH 7B) under
the customary fishing provisions of the Act. Section 21 also requires that any
regulations to prohibit fishing made under s 311 be taken into account when setting
allowances for recreational interests. This consideration is not relevant with regard
to ORH 7B as there is no recreational fishery for ORH 7B.
Page 151 of 397
APPENDIX 2
ORH7B Fishery
2006-07 Catch & Effort data
The Ministry’s IPP for ORH7B includes options to either cut the existing TAC by 50% or to close
the fishery altogether, on the basis that:
• There is a lack of evidence from the fishery to support the stock rebuild projected by the
2004 stock assessment
• It is unknown whether the current TACC is sustainable
• The TACC has been under-caught in four of the last five years
• Average tow duration and tow length have increased in recent years
In DWG’s submission in response to the IPP several reasons were given for the recent lack of
performance in this fishery, most of which were linked to factors other than stock abundance (e.g.
exodus of experienced skippers; small ACE parcels; dispersed nature of the fish; few ‘eyes’ on the
grounds; high fuel costs; reduced incentive to target roughy once the hoki season starts).
Feedback received by DWG in late July was that the ORH7B fishery had performed well during
2006-07. The overall catch of 123.829 t (FishServe data) amounted to an over-catch of 2% (a total
of 121.466 t of ACE was available to the fishery).
The object of this paper is to illustrate is that CPUE in this orange roughy fishery is more an
artefact of fishing behaviour than an indicator of underlying stock abundance. A preliminary update
of the unstandardised catch and effort data from the fishery has been prepared for this purpose.
Methods
•
•
•
•
Catch and effort data for 2006-07 were obtained from three vessels that caught 96.4% of the
total catch in the ORH7B fishery (Table 1)
Two of these (Cook Canyon and Galatea II) have been involved in this fishery for several
years. The third vessel (Ocean Pioneer) has not previously fished here although carried the
same skipper that fished here on Resolution II in recent years.
Non-targeted ORH catches were included in the analysis (i.e. 520 kg catch, 18 hrs effort, 6
tows).
The most recent data points were plotted alongside those of the historical unstandardised
catch and effort series (McKenzie, DWWG 07/22) to illustrate the marked changes in the
fishery during 2006-07.
Note:
Due to minor differences in methodologies this analysis of 2006-07 catch and effort data may not
be directly comparable with the most recent time-series of unstandardised CPUE for the fishery
(McKenzie, DWWG 07/22). However, while we recommend that the McKenzie analysis be
updated with the 2006-07 data we are of the view that the changes are real.
Table 1: Catch and effort data for the vessels Cook Canyon, Galatea (CELR data) and Ocean Pioneer
Page 152 of 397
(TCEPR data) during 2006-07.
ORH7B Targeted & Non-Targeted Fishing 2006-07
Fishing
Year
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
No.
vessel
days
Vessel
Cook Canyon
Galatea
Ocean Pioneer
25
14
4
43
No.
tows
79
45
15
139
Total
recorded
landed
catch (t)
59.627
38.633
21.756
120.016
Mean
Mean daily Mean daily
Mean tow
Mean tow
tow
catch rate catch rate
duration
speed (kt)
length
(t/tow)
(t/hr)
(hr)
(nm)
0.755
0.859
1.450
0.863
0.411
0.305
0.778
0.400
2.8
1.84
2.82
1.86
2.16
5.2
These new data for 2006-07suggest the following:
• The mean daily catch rate reached a 10-year high (Fig. 1)
• Mean tow duration declined to the 1995-96 level (Fig. 2)
• Over 80% of the effort and over 90% of the catch was taken during the spawn (June-July),
typical of the fishery pre 1996-97 (Figs 3 & 4)
ORH7B Mean Daily Catch Rate (t/tow)
Tonnes/tow
5
4
3
2
1
20
06
-0
7*
*
20
03
-0
4
20
00
-0
1
19
97
-9
8
19
94
-9
5
19
91
-9
2
19
88
-8
9
19
85
-8
6
0
Fishing Year
Figure 1. Mean daily catch rate (t/tow) ** 2006-07 data point not directly comparable.
Page 153 of 397
ORH7B Mean Tow Duration (hours)
5
Hours
4
3
2
1
20
06
-0
7*
*
20
03
-0
4
20
00
-0
1
19
97
-9
8
19
94
-9
5
19
91
-9
2
19
88
-8
9
19
85
-8
6
0
Fishing Year
Figure 2. Mean tow duration (hrs). ** 2006-07 data point not directly comparable.
ORH7B % Effort During Spawn (June+July)
% Effort (tows)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
20
06
-0
7*
*
20
03
-0
4
20
00
-0
1
19
97
-9
8
19
94
-9
5
19
91
-9
2
19
88
-8
9
19
85
-8
6
0%
Fishing Year
Figure 3. Fishing effort (% of tows) during the spawning season (June-July).
not directly comparable.
Page 154 of 397
** 2006-07 data point
ORH7B % Estimated Catch During Spawn (June+July)
% Catch (t)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
20
06
-0
7*
*
20
03
-0
4
20
00
-0
1
19
97
-9
8
19
94
-9
5
19
91
-9
2
19
88
-8
9
19
85
-8
6
0%
Fishing Year
Figure 4. The proportion of the catch taken during the spawning season (June-July). ** 2006-07 data point
not directly comparable.
Several factors contributed to the improved fishery parameters in 2006-07:
• Greater abundances of roughy on traditional towlines
• Favourable fishing/weather conditions during the spawn
• A concerted effort by vessel owners to purchase all available ACE
• Availability of the ACE prior to the spawn
• Concentrated fishing effort during the spawn (i.e. June and July)
The perception from MFish that tow duration and tow length have increased in recent years is also
somewhat misleading. These data in McKenzie’s paper were derived only from TCEPRs and are
representative of a very small component of the fishery (i.e. a total of 7 tows out of 393 in 2004-05
and only 3 tows out of 257 in 2005-06), and there is no rationale given as to why this small subset
would provide a useful basis for catch rate or stock analysis and is hardly worthy of consideration.
The view of the skippers and companies in the ORH7B fishery is that stock abundance has
improved in recent years, but that several factors have mitigated against consistent annual
performance:
• A small TACC fragmented into many small ACE parcels
• The difficulty in securing the ACE prior to the spawn
• Most skippers in this fishery focus on hoki and inshore species and lack the skills required
for targeted roughy fishing
• While the best roughy catch rates occur in June and July, vessels are redeployed to catch
hoki once this season starts, usually in early July
• Most roughy fishing in ORH7B occurs on flat ground and along traditional towlines. The
fish here are generally hard on the bottom and marks are seldom evident on echo-sounders
(i.e. this fishery doesn’t target marks as is the practice in other roughy fisheries)
• The small TACC translates to only three vessels in the fishery and very few ‘eyes’ on the
grounds. As a result, locating the fish is problematic, generally involves long tows and is
expensive to prosecute (i.e. it is financially a high risk fishery)
Page 155 of 397
In summary, many factors affect the performance of the ORH7B fishery and, as a result, the CPUE
index cannot be used as a reliable indicator of the underlying stock abundance. The analysis of the
2006-07 CPUE data presented in this paper illustrates how the conclusion reached in the 2007
DWFAWG Report, that “Recent catch-per-unit-effort data show no increase over the last 5 years
despite a large reduction in annual removals from the stock.” may not be correct. Catch rates by
themselves, in orange roughy fisheries, do not provide a reliable index of abundance.
It is the opinion of DWG that the available information does not provide the basis to take
management action to reduce the current TACC (which has been set at the MCY level) at this time.
Alternatively, DWG has proposed measures, through the implementation of a fishery plan, to
maximise the value of the data acquired from the fishery towards obtaining useful information on
which to base management decisions. We submit this is a logical and responsible route to follow.
N:\_PROJECTS\2006-07\4000 ORANGE ROUGHY & OREO\4051 DW STOCK ASSESSMENT & MANAGEMENT\DEEPWATER MANAGEMENT\FOR 2007-08\ORH7B FISHERY
UPDATE 280807.DOC
Page 156 of 397
APPENDIX 3
Directed fishing proposal
Project:
Assessment of the ORH 7B Fishery
Project Code:
Not assigned
Start Date:
1 October 2007
Completion Date:
ongoing
Vessel Use:
Commercial vessels as required
Overall Objectives:
To assess the status of the ORH 7B Fishstock.
Specific Objectives:
1.
Obtain a full understanding of the ORH 7B fishery by monitoring catches, catch rates and
biological information from this fishery at the finest practicable level of spatial resolution.
2.
Monitor the relative biomass of this fishstock using trawl survey methodology, based on a
“hybrid” survey design, which makes best use of commercial fishing capacity.
Rationale:
Previous research and the stock assessment
1.
The ORH 7B Fishstock was assessed at 17% B0 in 2004, with the CPUE β fixed at 1.0, and at
45% B0 with β estimated. This assessment predicted the stock would rebuild from 2000, but
this prediction has not been supported from observations in the fishery. An update of this
assessment in 2007, based on commercial CPUE, was not accepted by the Deepwater Fishery
Assessment Working Group (DWFAWG).
2.
The reasons the stock assessment models estimate the stock is rebuilding under the current
TACC is that approximately 16,000 t of orange roughy have been removed from this fishery
over the past 24 years, a level of catch which indicates that the unfished biomass would have
been on the order of 20,000 t. An orange roughy stock of this size should be able to sustain
annual catches in the order of 110 t, even with the low productivity attributed to orange
roughy and especially since recruitment would still be derived from the unfished biomass,
under the current ageing assumptions.
3.
The 2007 CPUE analysis is problematic because of a substantial shift in the fishery away
from areas which showed high initial catch rates and a shift in the fleet from larger vessels
capable of fishing in more extreme situations to a smaller coastal fleet staffed by less
experienced skippers. The CPUE analysis presented to the DWFAWG indicates that there is
practically no overlap between the vessels presently fishing with those fishing in earlier years
(McKenzie 2007).
Page 157 of 397
Research and management proposal
4.
In order to ensure sustainable management of this fishery, it is important that we collect
adequate information from the fishery. The current TACC was set at the MCY level
estimated in the 2001 and 2004 stock assessments. This level of catch was believed at the
time to have been conservatively set and should enable the stock to rebuild, given the model
assumptions and reasonable levels of recruitment. It is important that we now collect more
consistent and robust information from this fishery to establish whether current catches are
sustainable and are allowing the stock to rebuild.
5.
On behalf of the ORH 7B quota owners, The Deepwater Group Limited (DWG) has proposed
to the Ministry of Fisheries that participants in the ORH 7B the fishery would be willing to
collect useful scientific information to inform future management decisions. This document
presents the objectives, scope and general structure of a research plan. A more complete
description of this research plan will be developed between industry and MFish over time.
Explanation of the objectives
6.
The present ORH 7B TACC and catch are a fraction of their previous size. The small size of
the current fishery compared to the relatively large size of the unfished biomass reduces
options for both management and research. In particular, the research options are limited to
monitoring catches from the current fishery and the possible mounting of a small-scale
“hybrid” trawl survey. Reducing the current TACC during the period of the data collection
would be counter-productive because this would even further diminish the capacity to collect
information. However, both research options are potentially feasible and both should provide
information to inform future management decisions.
7.
Very little monitoring effort has been expended in this fishery, particularly during the early
stages of the fishery. The biological composition of the catch was not followed and there are
considerable uncertainties with respect to the quality of the CPUE analysis. Part of the reason
that the current CPUE analysis lacks credibility is that there have been significant changes in
the fishery which reduce the power of the CPUE analysis to track changes in abundance
because other factors might also cause shifts in catch rates. These factors include a shift
away from larger to smaller vessels, changes in skippers (with the concomitant loss of
knowledge of the fishing grounds and their orange roughy fishing skills), and changes in the
areas fished. With the lower TACC, many of the parcels of ACE have been reduced to levels
that are below the practical level for trading, resulting in many parcels remaining unfished.
The 2007 stock assessment attempted to deal with some of these issues by separating the
analysis into two series: one representing the earlier fishery based on larger vessels and using
the more detailed catch/effort data available on the MFish TCEPR forms. The second series,
representing the current fleet, began in the mid 1990s and uses CPUE data derived from the
less detailed CELR forms. However, this approach did not materially change the analysis and
the updated ORH 7B assessment was not accepted by the DWFAWG.
8.
Fishery-independent information is almost always preferred to fishery-derived information
because it is less susceptible to economic and social factors which undoubtedly have a
profound influence on the catch rates. Biological information is required from the fishery so
that the composition of the fish being removed can be monitored.
9.
This research proposal consists of the following initiatives:
a.
Report all catch on TCEPR forms. This will allow for a more consistent time series of
comparable catch data, including the provision of tow by tow locations;
Page 158 of 397
b.
Institute a biological catch sampling programme. It is proposed that be modelled on the
programme implemented by the DWG for the exploratory fishing areas in ORH3B.
The data collected by this programme have been evaluated and used by the DWFAWG
in recent assessments for both orange roughy and oreo. In outline, this programme
involves randomly selecting one tow per day and then randomly sampling about 100
orange roughy from this tow, as long as the tow satisfies the minimum catch
requirement. Otherwise the subsequent tow is sampled. Because this fishery is small
(currently only three vessels are operating), all vessels will need to subscribe to this
design in order to obtain an adequate sample. There is also an opportunity to minimise
the disruption on board these small vessels, as the catch is landed fresh which means
that all that is required from the vessel operator is to sequester the catch into bins for
on-shore measurements. As well, implementing this procedure means that there is an
opportunity to collect otoliths which may additionally improve the monitoring capacity
of the programme;
c.
This is one of the few orange roughy fisheries that may be fished on flat ground and not
targeted at aggregations. Therefore, it is possible that a trawl survey approach may
provide usable information for this stock. The objective of collecting this information
would be to establish an index of abundance that could track changes in stock
abundance over future years, given the expectation from the 2001 and 2004 assessments
that the stock is increasing in size under current catch levels. However, such a survey is
unlikely provide a better understanding of the stock status relative to the unfished
biomass.
i.
Trawl surveys tend to be expensive and thus are usually confined to large, wellestablished fisheries. However, there is a need to apply this technology to smaller
and/or less valuable fisheries because of the unreliability of fishery-derived data
for tracking biomass levels. Applying survey methodology while engaged in
commercial fishing is a possible way to obtain the benefits of surveys without
incurring the high cost of using a dedicated research vessel. This methodology
involves asking commercial vessels to perform tows at pre-selected locations in a
prescribed manner and then cataloguing the catch from the tow. This
methodology sacrifices some of the rigour of a dedicated research vessel,
including consistent vessels and gear, experienced scientific personnel and
detailed examination of the catch. However, the gains made may be considerable,
including lowered costs, potentially better representation of the population over
time (by covering a wider time period), and the availability of experienced fishing
skippers.
ii.
Designing such a programme is not trivial and requires a detailed examination of
the available catch and effort data to determine the potential extent of the survey,
both in space and in time. However, the ORH 7B fishery does not commence
until just prior to the spawning season (see Figure 3 in the attached document
[McKenzie 2007], showing that the fishery was mainly a June and July fishery
even at its very beginning), which provides the opportunity for the DWG and
MFish to develop a detailed design, obtain support from fishers and to consult
with the DWFAWG on the design and to implement it prior to the 2008 fishing
season.
Reference:
McKenzie, A. (2007) Descriptive and standardised CPUE analyses for the west coast South Island
orange roughy fishery (ORH 7B) up to 2005–06. DWWG Document No. 2007/022. 24 p.
Page 159 of 397
Page 160 of 397
HOKI – FINAL ADVICE
1
This paper provides you with the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) recommendations for the
hoki fishery for the 2007-08 fishing season.
Figure 1: The hoki east-west catch split boundary and the hoki closed areas.
Executive summary
2
The hoki fishery is managed as one quota management system (QMS) stock, HOK1,
although HOKI is considered to be two stocks, an eastern stock and a western stock. The
2007 hoki stock assessment results indicate that the western stock is below the biomass that
Page 161 of 397
can produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) but the eastern stock is at or above
BMSY.
3
The 2007 stock assessment predicts that the western stock will rebuild only if recruitment is
better than it has been in recent years or catches in the western stock are reduced in
comparison to recent catch levels.
4
In June 2007 MFish consulted on three management options in the hoki initial position
paper (IPP) and these options remain unchanged in this final advice. MFish proposes that
you consider the TAC pursuant to section 13(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act 1996 to restore
HOK1, in a way and rate, to at or above a level that can produce the maximum sustainable
yield. The stock assessment model runs used to develop these management options were
based on recent hoki recruitment levels. This is a cautious approach and reflects the below
average recruitment that has occurred in the western stock from 1995 to 2003.
5
Option 1 contributes to a stock increase by reducing catch levels in the western stock
compared to the past two fishing seasons. Option 2 increases stock size through a reduction
in the hoki total allowable commercial catch (TACC) for the 2007-08 fishing season and
effecting that reduction by reducing catch from the western stock only. Option 3 provides
for an increase in stock size by transferring catch from the western stock to the eastern stock
while maintaining the TACC at its current level.
6
All three management options will facilitate a rebuild towards BMSY for HOK1 overall,
though at differing rates and in different ways. However, none of the options is predicted to
rebuild the western stock to BMSY within 5 years. Returning the western stock to BMSY in
that timeframe is only possible by closing the western stock to all fishing effort. You are not
obliged to rebuild the stock in that time frame; your decision on both the way and rate of
rebuild must consider social cultural and economic factors.
7
A wide range of views were received through the submissions process. Some stakeholders
support retaining the existing TAC and TACC while others consider the only practical
option available to you is to reduce the fishing effort on the western stock through a TAC
and TACC reduction. All three management options are available for your consideration
and in choosing one management option over another you must decide on the way you want
to achieve a rebuild and the timeframe within which this rebuild will occur.
8
All options rely on industry adhering to the voluntary east: west catch split arrangement.
Given the issues associated with codes of practice and voluntary initiatives in the past you
must have confidence that the voluntary initiatives in place to support the hoki rebuild have
integrity. MFish believes this to be the case, and evidence form the 2006-07 fishery supports
this view.
9
The deemed value rates for hoki were also reviewed for the 2007-08 fishing season as part
of the wider deemed value review process and are provided in separate advice.
Page 162 of 397
Summary of options
10
The options available for your consideration are unchanged from the IPP.
Option 1 (status quo)
AGREE to retain the existing HOK1 TAC and TACC of 101,040 and 100,000 tonnes
respectively; and request industry to retain the existing catch split arrangement so that 60%
of the TACC will be harvested from the eastern stock and the remaining 40% of the TACC
being harvested from the western stock.
This option is not strictly the status quo given that the western limit has been exceeded in
the past two fishing seasons; rather this option reflects the harvest levels that should have
occurred in the 2004-05 and 2005-06 fishing seasons and has likely occurred in 2006-07.
OR
Option 2
AGREE to reduce the HOK1 TAC from 101,040 tonnes to 81,040 tonnes and the TACC
from 100,000 tonnes to 80,000 tonnes (a reduction of 20%); and request industry to alter the
voluntary catch split arrangement so that 60,000 tonnes (75% of the TACC) are taken from
the eastern stock and 20,000 tonnes (25% of the TACC) are taken from the western stock.
OR
Option 3:
AGREE to retain the existing HOK1 TAC and TACC of 101,040 and 100,000 tonnes
respectively; and request industry alter the voluntary catch split arrangement so that 65% of
the catch is taken from the eastern stock and that this additional 5,000 tonnes is caught from
the Cook Strait fishery so as to protect juvenile hoki found on the Chatham Rise.
11
You are not constrained to the options detailed above and you may to set the HOK1 TAC
and TACC at a different level consistent with your obligations under the Act. MFish
considers that setting the TAC at any point between 81,040 and 101,040 tonnes would be
consistent with the provisions of s13(2)(b) and the Purpose of the Act.
Consultation
12
Your decision whether or not to adjust the TAC for HOK1 is a decision under sections
13(2)(b) and 13(4) of the Act and therefore the consultation requirements of section 12
apply. Further, in respect of your decision whether or not to adjust the TACC for HOK1, the
consultation requirements set out in section 21(2) apply.
13
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of
those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the
aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Maori, environmental, commercial,
and recreational interests.
14
MFish followed its standard consultation process for IPPs in the October 2007 sustainability
round. This involved posting all IPPs on MFish’s website and alerting stakeholders to this
Page 163 of 397
through a letter sent to approximately 350 companies, organisations and individuals.
Submissions Received
15
Submissions were received from the following:
a)
Deepwater Group Ltd (DWG)
b)
Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc (ECO)
c)
Independent Fisheries Ltd (Independent)
d)
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC)
e)
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc (Forest & Bird)
f)
Sanford Limited (Sanford)
g)
Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC)
h)
Sealord Fishing (Sealord)
i)
Solander and Aurora Group of Companies (Solander & Aurora)
j)
Talley’s Fisheries Ltd (Talley’s)
k)
Te Ohu Kai Moana (TOKM)
l)
United Fisheries Ltd (United)
m)
Vela Quota No. 1 Limited (Vela)
n)
WWF – New Zealand (WWF).
16
A summary of submissions and copies of the submissions in full are included in Volume 2
and Volume 3 of the FAP.
17
Submissions revealed strongly held opposing views on where the hoki TAC and TACC
should be set for the coming season. Some members of industry support Option 2 while
others believed the TACC should remain unchanged at 100,000 but that improved stock
performance could be achieved through altering the east: west catch split arrangement
(Option 3). Two industry submissions supported Option 1 which would retain the existing
TAC, TACC and catch split arrangement.
18
The DWG summarised the position amongst industry members as:
a)
54% of quota owners are in favour of reducing the TACC to 80,000 while 46% of
quota owners support the TACC remaining at 100,000.
b)
91% of quota owners recognise the need for and support a reduction in catch from
the western stock for the 2007-08 season.
Page 164 of 397
19
Neither Forest & Bird nor WWF support any of the options proposed in the IPP. They
recommend that the TACC should be reduced to 60,000 tonnes and all western stock
fisheries should be closed.
Background information
20
The hoki fishery is currently managed as one stock, HOK1, which covers fisheries
management areas 1-9. The fishery consists of two distinct stocks, an eastern stock and a
western stock. Within each stock there are the following defined fishing areas:
a)
Eastern hoki stock: Cook Strait, Chatham Rise, East Coast South Island (ECSI) and
East Coast North Island (ECNI).
b)
Western hoki stock: West Coast South Island (WCSI), Sub-Antarctic and Puysegur.
21
Juvenile hoki from both stocks mix on the Chatham Rise. They are thought to migrate to the
eastern or western stock on maturity.
22
The main hoki fishery operates from mid-July to late August on the WCSI where hoki
aggregate to spawn. A second major spawning fishery occurs in Cook Strait where the
season runs from late June to mid-September peaking in July and August. Small catches of
spawning hoki are taken from other spawning grounds off ECSI and, late in the season, at
Puysegur Bank.
23
Outside the spawning season there is a substantial fishery on the Chatham Rise and a
smaller fishery in the Sub-Antarctic. The Chatham Rise fishery generally has constant catch
levels across all months except July to September when catches are lower because fishing
vessels move to their spawning ground. In the Sub-Antarctic, catches typically peak in April
to June. There is also a small ECNI hoki fishery.
24
In 2001 industry implemented a voluntary catch splitting arrangement to manage fishing
effort across these two stocks. This catch split arrangement has altered since it was first
implemented but, since 2004 it has been set so that 60% of the TACC should be taken from
the eastern stock and 40% from the western stock.
25
Through the hoki Code of Practice, industry has also implemented a range of voluntary
measures to protect juvenile hoki. These measures include closing four areas to hoki
targeting, believed to be significant to juvenile hoki (see figure 1). These areas are still
accessible to vessels targeting other species such as scampi, ling and squid.
26
Three operators own 65% of hoki quota. These three quota owners also represent 62% of
ACE fishers. In 2006 the value of hoki quota was estimated to be $627 m.
27
Hoki is one of the most important export earners for the fisheries sector. In 2006, 42,000
tonnes (product weight) of hoki were exported realising a value of $156 m. The destination
for much of these exports is China where the product is processed for re-export into Europe
and the USA. The hoki fishery received Marine Stewardship Council Certification in 2001.
The fishery is currently seeking recertification.
Page 165 of 397
Rationale for Management intervention
28
Estimates of current biomass for the western stock, based on current recruitment, are
between 15-24% Bo which is approximately 50% lower than the recommended target of 3040% Bo. In contrast, the eastern stock appears to be at or above BMSY. Current biomass for
the stock is estimated to be between 37% and 51% Bo. The status of the western stock means
the entire HOK1 stock is also currently below BMSY at 25-29% Bo.
29
The decline in the western stock has been attributed to extended periods of poor recruitment
for the period 1995 to 2001. Recruitment since 2001 is estimated to be better than that of
1995-2001, but is still below the long-term average. Hoki is predominantly a recruitmentdriven fishery meaning that the landings and the biomass of the stock fluctuate in response
to strong year classes. Likely causes of this poor recruitment are unknown and it is unclear
if it is due to environmental factors, the effects of fishing activity on juvenile mortality or
excess mortality of adult hoki (or some combination of all three). In the absence of good
recruitment it is important to maintain a high spawning stock biomass.
30
Stock assessment model projections indicate that the biomass for the western stock will not
increase unless future recruitment is better than it has been in recent years or catch from the
fisheries that comprise the western stock is reduced compared to recent catch rates.
31
There is also a concern that in recent years there has been higher fishing mortality on
juvenile hoki. This could impact on future recruitment if they are harvested before they
mature.
32
The stock assessment process provided five-year stock projections across three model runs
based on recent recruitment levels (1995-2003). 61 Providing stock projections across a five
year period ensures the variable nature of hoki stock recruitment is considered. If the stock
assessment projections were based on long term recruitment levels (1975-2003), the 5 year
projections of biomass for both eastern and western stock at current levels are at or above
BMSY. However, given the continued period of poor recruitment observed in the western
stock the stock assessment working group and MFish agree that basing management
decisions on model runs that assume recent recruitment levels is appropriate.
Analysis of management options
33
Under section 13 of the Act, a TAC must be set or varied with respect to the level of the
entire quota management area stock. MFish proposes that, for the entire HOK1 stock, you
consider the TAC pursuant to section 13(2)(b) to enable HOK1 to be restored to at or above
BMSY. Specifically, section 13(2)(b) provides that you set a TAC that:
b)
Enables the level of a stock whose current level is below that which can produce the
maximum sustainable yield to be altered (13(2)(b))
61
The hoki stock assessment working group approved three model runs for the current stock assessment. Each model
run is based on different assumptions to which the working group gave each equal weighting. Model runs 4.4 and 4.5
assume natal fidelity i.e. that hoki return to area they were spawned to spawn. Model run 4.7 does not assume natal
fidelity.
Page 166 of 397
34
i)
In a way and at a rate that will result in the stock being restored to at or above
a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, having regard to the
interdependence of stocks; and
ii)
Within a period appropriate to the stock having regard to the biological
characteristics of the stock and any environmental conditions affecting the
stock;
Table 1 summarises the proposed management options which are described in more detail
below. None of the management options proposed will effect a significant rebuild of the
western stock in the short term although Option 2 will achieve a rebuild of HOK1 over the
next five years. Under each option a greater rebuild of the western stock will only occur
with better recruitment. Each of the options proposed will facilitate a rebuild of HOK1, will
prevent the stock biomass from declining further and will put the hoki stock in a better
position to benefit from improved recruitment should it occur in the future.
Table 1: Summary of proposed management options for HOK1 including predicted rebuild, based on recent
recruitment, over a 5yr period.
Management
option
Option 1
35
TAC
101,040
TACC
100,000
Eastern
stock limit
60%
Western
stock limit
40%
5yr % Bo
HOK1 stock
27-31% Bo
30-35% Bo
27-31% Bo
Option 2
81,040
80,000
75%
25%
Option 3
101,040
100,000
65%
35%
5yr % Bo
Eastern stock
37-49% Bo
37-49% Bo
36-46% Bo
5yr % Bo
Western stock
18-25% Bo
23-29% Bo
19-26% Bo
The 2007 stock assessment information indicates that all the management options proposed
in the IPP will move the HOK1 stock towards BMSY. The rate of rebuild and the way this
rebuild is achieved are at your discretion. When deciding on an appropriate ‘way and rate’
in setting or varying the TAC, the Act requires you to:
a)
Have regard to the interdependence of stocks (s 13(2)(b)(i));
b)
Have regard to the biological characteristics and the environmental factors affecting
the stock. (s 13(2)(b)(ii)); and
c)
Have regard to such social, economic and cultural factors that you consider relevant
(s 13(3)).
36
These ‘way and rate’ statutory considerations are discussed in more detail in relation to each
option in the following paragraphs but MFish considers the three options consulted on in the
IPP remain valid management options for your consideration. All submissions received,
with the exception of Forest and Bird and WWF, support one of these management options.
37
Both Forest & Bird and WWF believe that given the state of the western stock, the TAC and
TACC should be set at 61,040 and 60,000 respectively. They also consider that all western
stock fisheries should be closed and that the entire TACC should be harvested from the
eastern stock.
38
While this approach is not excluded by s 13, MFish considers it would likely be inconsistent
with the Purpose of the Act: although such an approach would provide for sustainability of
the hoki stock, it would come at an unreasonable cost to utilisation of the hoki fishery.
39
In addition, MFish considers that the option proposed by Forest & Bird and WWF to reduce
Page 167 of 397
the TAC by 40,000 tonnes should not be considered without further consultation with
affected stakeholders since this is materially different to the options consulted on in the IPP.
In effect, closing the western stock will significantly affect operations in the hoki fishery
and will prevent fishers from harvesting target species in fisheries where hoki is a
significant bycatch, such as ling (LIN7 and LIN5) and hake (HAK7). There are likely to be
large short-term economic consequences of such a decision.
40
You may set the HOK1 TAC and TACC at any level consistent with your obligations under
the Act. MFish considers that setting the TAC at any point between 81,040 and 101,040
tonnes would likely be consistent with the provisions of s 13(2)(b), s13(3) and therefore the
purpose of the Act.
Option 1
41
Under this option the TAC and TACC would remain at 101,040 tonnes and 100,000 tonnes
respectively and the voluntary catch arrangement would continue so that 60% of the TACC
will come from the eastern stock and 40% from the western stock. This option is not strictly
the status quo given that the western limit has been breached in the past two fishing seasons;
rather this option reflects the harvest levels that should have occurred in the past two fishing
seasons. This option will achieve only a small rebuild of the western stock over a five year
period but the entire hoki stock could reach 27-31% Bo, which is closer to the lower
boundary of the target biomass (see table 1).
Option 2
42
Under Option 2 the TAC and TACC would be reduced by 20% to 81,040 and 80,000
tonnes. In addition the east: west voluntary catch split arrangement would be set so that
60,000 tonnes (75% of the TACC) is taken from the eastern stock with the remaining
20,000 tonnes (25% of the TACC) coming from the western stock. According to the model
projections, this management option would facilitate the largest rebuild to the HOK1 stock:
a projected rebuild to 30-35% Bo over a five year period. This equates to a 20%
improvement in the status of the stock over the next five years. Option 2 will also facilitate a
rebuild of the western stock over a five year period, although it is likely to remain below
BMSY, at 23-29% Bo, unless recruitment improves.
Option 3
43
Under this option, both the TAC and TACC would remain unchanged at 101,040 tonnes and
100,000 tonnes respectively for the 2007-08 fishing season. This option would result in a
similar rate of rebuild to the HOK1 stock as would be achieved under Option 1 (27-31%
Bo). However, a marginal improvement to the rebuild of the western stock, compared to
Option 1, would be achieved through altering the catch split arrangement and shifting
fishing effort from the western stock to the eastern stock.
44
This option would request 65% of the TACC to be taken from the eastern stock under the
voluntary catch split arrangement. This is an additional 5,000 tonnes above what has been
permitted in recent fishing seasons. In the past two fishing seasons, 60,000 tonnes of hoki
was available for harvest from the eastern stock but this limit was not reached: in 2005-06
57,000 tonnes were harvested and in 2004-05, 59,000 tonnes were harvested.
45
There are concerns that increasing fishing pressure on the eastern stock might impact on
Page 168 of 397
juvenile hoki and their ability to recruit to either of the spawning stock, particularly if this
extra effort is exclusively focused on the Chatham Rise fishery. Therefore, in addition to
altering the catch split arrangement, hoki quota owners will also be requested to catch only
35,000 tonnes of hoki from the Chatham Rise fishery. The remainder of the eastern stock
allowance should be harvested from the Cook Strait and ECSI fisheries.
Risk assessment and management
Cost-Benefit Analysis
46
In the New Zealand Fishing Industry Association Inc v Minister of Fisheries (CA82/97,
22/7/97) case (known as the ‘Snapper 1’ case), the Court of Appeal wrote “the Minister
would be wise to undertake a careful cost/benefit analysis of a reasonable range of options
available to him in moving the fishery towards MSY”. Appendix 1 provides a tabular
summary of the costs and benefits of each option; the detail of each is provided in following
section on way and rate of rebuild.
47
Given the lack of quantifiable information available, it is not possible to sum the costs and
benefits associated with each option. Neither is it possible to compare the costs against the
benefits to determine the superior option.
Way and rate of rebuild
48
Section 13 of the Act allows you to rebuild the hoki stock at an appropriate ‘way and rate’.
There is no statutory guidance on what an appropriate ‘way and rate’ might be in any given
case – it is a matter for you to determine. Stock assessment model projections have been
provided for a five year period only with some projections for HOK1 reaching BMSY in that
5-year period and others taking longer. MFish notes you are not required to ensure a rebuild
is achieved in this 5-year time frame and a longer rebuild period is available to you.
49
According to the model projections, all three management options have the potential to
move the HOK1 stock to at or above BMSY within a five year period (although Option 2
achieves the most rapid rebuild). However, none of the options will achieve a full rebuild of
the western stock and, as depicted in Table 1 the western stock will continue below BMSY
over the next five year period if recruitment continues to be below the long term average.
50
To achieve a rebuild of the western stock within five years would require a substantial cut to
the TAC or a dramatic shift of effort to the eastern stock. Both actions would likely lead to
drastic short term economic consequences and therefore in MFish’s view are unlikely to
meet the Purpose of the Act.
Option 1
51
Option 1 will effect the slowest rebuild of the western stock but could move the entire hoki
stock to the lower end of the recommended BMSY range within five years, to 27-31% Bo. A
faster rebuild of the western stock will take longer than five years unless future recruitment
is better than it has been in recent years. In essence, this option prevents the stock biomass
from declining further and only a slight rebuild of the western stock can be expected, if
below average recruitment continues.
52
This option also relies on industry maintaining their commitment to the east: west voluntary
Page 169 of 397
catch split arrangement. Under this option the existing catch split arrangement will remain,
with 40% of the TACC being harvested from the western stock and 60% from the eastern
stock. Industry will not be required to change existing fishing practices with the exception
of abiding by the TAC limits.
53
MFish considers this option will result in the fewest socio-economic consequences for
industry.
Option 2
54
Option 2 is likely to effect the greatest rebuild of the hoki stock over the five year timeframe
but even under this management option the western stock will remain below BMSY unless
recruitment improves.
55
This rebuild will be achieved through a 20,000 tonne TAC (and TACC reduction). The
catch split arrangement will remain in place but industry will have to agree that 75% of the
TACC will be harvested from the eastern stock
56
Reducing the TAC and the TACC by 20,000 tonnes and altering the catch split arrangement
so that only 20,000 tonnes can be taken from the western stock is likely to have a significant
social and economic impact on the entire deepwater fishing sector, and in particular on
those operators that traditionally harvest their hoki ACE from the western stock. This was
acknowledged in the submissions received from industry, including from those operators
who have publicly supported Option 2.
57
Reducing the TACC by 20% will have an immediate impact on economic utilisation in the
hoki fishery as export earnings can be expected to mirror the total catch reduction. While it
is not possible to estimate by how much export earnings will fall, MFish estimates that
based on the average export price from 2006, of $3.71 per kg, the impact in export earnings
could be around $30m. 62 There is also the concern that a TACC reduction may impact on
overseas supply contracts for other New Zealand species.
58
Both Talley’s and Vela believe that reducing the TACC by 20,000 tonnes will result in the
loss of 1,000-2,000 FTEs from the seafood sector as this option is likely to lead to
considerable rationalisation of the number of vessels operating in the fishery, and of
processing capability on land. 63 This view is supported by Independent who submit that a
20% TACC reduction will cause both significant economic and social hardship as quota
owners may be forced to restructure their at sea capability and their onshore value-added
facilities.
59
Altering the catch split arrangement will also require a significant adjustment in fleet
operations amongst the main hoki fishing companies. Reducing effort on the western stock
by 50% will mean that those operators that rely on this fishery will be forced to either move
their fishing effort to the eastern stock or seek alternative fishing arrangements; given that
effort in the eastern stock is already at its limit the latter outcome is more realistic.
62
Based on export statistics from 2005 and 2006, a TACC of 100,000 tonnes results in an export volume of
approximately 42,000 tonnes (42%). If the TACC is reduced to 80,000 tonnes then MFish estimates that approximately
34,000 tonnes will be exported – a difference of approx. 8,000 tonnes. Using the average export price from 2006, of
$3710 per tonne, this equates to $29.68m.
63
MFish has no way to verify these claims although total employment in the seafood sector is currently estimated to be
10,000 FTEs. Therefore this would represent a loss of 10 to 20% of total employment.
Page 170 of 397
60
The Solander and Aurora Group of Companies submitted that any reduction in effort on the
western stock will mean they will be unable to cover their incidental bycatch of hoki from
quota management areas (QMAs) 5 and 6. This is because it will be difficult for them to
trade their eastern ACE for western ACE since there will be insufficient western ACE
available for trading.
Option 3
61
Option 3, like Option 1, proposes retaining the TAC and TACC at 101,040 and 100,000
tonnes respectively. MFish considers that maintaining the existing TAC and TACC should
move HOK1 towards BMSY while the amended catch spreading arrangements under this
option should also increase the rate of rebuild in the western stock (though at a slower rate
than Option 2).
62
As with all the proposed management options, there is a requirement under Option 3 to
manage the catch levels from both the western and eastern stocks. This option proposes
altering the catch split arrangement so that less hoki is harvested from the western stock
(35,000 tonnes as opposed to 40,000) but more hoki is taken from the eastern stock (65,000
tonnes as opposed to 60,000 tonnes). Industry will be requested to direct this increased
effort to the Cook Strait.
63
Option 3 is likely to have less economic impact than Option 2, as maintaining a TACC of
100,000 will enable fishers to protect their supply contracts and maintain export revenues at
current levels. None of the submissions received on the IPP provided comment on the likely
cost and economic implications associated with Option 3. However, some restructuring of
fishing operations is likely as companies will have to alter previous fishing patterns to
ensure the new catch split arrangement and juvenile hoki protection measures are achieved.
Harvest limits for the eastern and western stock
64
For each of the options described above to successfully rebuild HOK1, fishing effort must
be divided between the eastern and western stocks, irrespective of whether the TACC is
80,000 or 100,000 tonnes. Under each option most of the fishing effort will occur on the
eastern stock, as a reduction in catch from the western stock is necessary to achieve a
rebuild.
65
However, MFish considers allowing for more than 75,000 tonnes of fish to be harvested
annually from the eastern stock may lead to sustainability concerns for this stock over the
next five years. In model projections with a catch level of 75,000 tonnes per year from the
eastern stock, the biomass of the eastern stock is predicted to fall to 34-40% Bo over the
next 5 years. Any increased catch above this level would deplete the stock below BMSY.
66
Increasing the proportion of catch taken from the eastern stock will also lead to increased
catches on the Chatham Rise. This increased effort could increase catches of juvenile hoki
which in turn may reduce the number of juvenile hoki that migrate to the WCSI to spawn.
SeaFIC in their submission, following additional stock assessment analysis by NIWA, note
that long-term, increased eastern stock catches could be detrimental to the western stock
especially if these increased catches come from the shared juvenile grounds on the Chatham
Rise.
67
This could be managed by restricting effort on the Chatham Rise and requiring fishers to
Page 171 of 397
increase the proportion of the TACC taken from the eastern spawning grounds including
Cook Strait. However increasing effort in the Cook Strait, beyond the levels of effort
proposed under Option 2, may increase the effect on fur seal and marine mammal
populations. This would also be problematic for vessel operators as there are size limitations
on the types of vessels that can successfully operate in Cook Strait and would therefore
require some fleet restructuring.
68
A substantial reduction in the amount of effort permitted in the western stock fisheries
(beyond that proposed in Option 2) will significantly impact on commercial fishing
operations in the hoki fishery but will also prevent fishers from harvesting target species in
fisheries where hoki is a significant bycatch such as ling (LIN7 and LIN5) and hake
(HAK7). The socio-economic implications of this are severe and will impact on company
operations, export earnings and on the value of quota in these fisheries.
69
For the reasons discussed above MFish recommends that you do not request industry to
make any alteration to the voluntary catch split arrangement that would result in more than
75,000 tonnes of the HOK1 TACC being harvested from the eastern stock.
Effect on the aquatic environment
70
Environmental NGOs are concerned that the current hoki fishery adversely impacts on
seabirds and on the benthic habitat and that for this reason you should consider a lower TAC
and TACC.
71
Under s 11(1)(a), in varying the TAC, you must take into account any effects of fishing on
any stock and the aquatic environment. MFish is aware that the majority of seabird captures
in the hoki fishery come from the eastern stocks (Chatham Rise and Cook Strait). Therefore,
any increase in effort on the eastern stock could potentially increase the effect on seabird
populations.
72
MFish considers that the options proposed are unlikely to increase the impact on the aquatic
environment from the hoki fishery. While MFish acknowledges the concerns over potential
effects on seabird populations and the benthic environment, it is satisfied that existing
management measures, such as seabird mitigations devices, offal management and benthic
protected areas (BPAs) address many of these concerns. In addition MFish is finalising
work on a seabird standard and on a Benthic Impact Strategy which will set out how MFish
will manage the effects of fishing on the benthic environment and on seabird populations.
73
MFish also notes that there are other tools available under the Act to address the effects of
fishing on the aquatic environment that are likely to more appropriate. In this instance,
MFish considers sustainability measures implemented under s 11 and 15 to be more
desirable tools than reducing the TAC for HOK1 to effectively mitigate the effects of
fishing on seabirds
Integrity of voluntary initiatives
74
All three management options rely on industry adherence to a range of voluntary measures
including the east: west catch split arrangement. In past fishing seasons MFish has had
reason to question the effectiveness of these voluntary measures:
a)
In the last two fishing seasons (before 2006-07) the hoki catch has exceeded the
Page 172 of 397
TACC of 100,000 tonnes; 104,387 tonnes was taken in the 2005-06 fishing season
and 104,421 tonnes was taken in the 2004-05 fishing season.
75
b)
The voluntary east: west catch split - In the 2005-0006 season approximately 46,500
tonnes was removed from the western stock and 45,000 tonnes was removed during
the 2004-05 fishing season. Under the catch split arrangement the western stock
limit should be 40,000 tonnes.
c)
There are also concerns that the juvenile hoki closed areas and other initiatives to
protect juvenile hoki have not been fully respected or appropriately monitored.
However, it is difficult to assess the extent to which these initiatives have been
breached.
Given the issues described above there is cause for concern about relying on voluntary
measures to achieve a rebuild in the hoki fishery. However, in recent months both MFish
and industry, through the DWG, have worked collaboratively to ensure greater integrity of
all management measures in place in the hoki fishery. This has involved implementing the
following ‘real time’ management measures in the winter hoki fishery:
a)
Weekly monitoring of catch levels against the eastern and western stock catch limits
and against available ACE
b)
At-sea auditing of the hoki code of practice, vessel management plans and the
marine mammal operating procedure by the MFish Observer programme.
c)
Weekly catch sampling of catches from the WCSI so as to profile the lengthfrequency distribution of hoki taken from the western stock.
76
Although the hoki season is still underway, MFish and the DWG are optimistic that catch
levels across the entire hoki stock will remain within the TAC and TACC limit and will
reflect the 60:40 east: west catch split arrangement. MFish is also satisfied that, following
the observer audits, the majority of vessels are adhering to the voluntary measures to protect
seabirds, marine mammals and juvenile hoki.
77
MFish considers that the recent events in the winter hoki fishery indicate that existing
voluntary measures have integrity. MFish and the DWG will continue to work
collaboratively to ensure the level of management integrity observed in recent months
continues throughout the period of the hoki stock rebuild.
78
MFish notes that Forest & Bird and the NZRFC do not support the reliance on voluntary
management measures to achieve a stock rebuild. If you are not satisfied that these
voluntary measures effectively contribute to the required rebuild of the hoki stock, then you
may wish to consider setting other sustainability measures under section 11 of the Act.
These measures could include closing the western hoki fishery once the western stock limit
has been reached. If you wish to progress such measures, then MFish would be required to
prepare initial advice, fully consult with stakeholders on your behalf and provide you with
final advice. Such measures would also most likely be implemented by regulation. As a
result such measures could not be in place for the commencement of the 1 October 2007
fishing year. Provided the voluntary catch split arrangement continues to have integrity,
MFish does not believe this approach is necessary at this time.
Page 173 of 397
Other management issues
79
Some of the submissions received from industry proposed additional management measures
to support the western stock rebuild. Talley’s and Independent both believe that reducing
the TAC is only one management tool available to you. They believe there are a suite of
tools such as introducing further permanent closures to protect juvenile hoki and increasing
the temporary spawning closures in the Cook Strait and on the WCSI which you could
consider in place of a more drastic TAC reduction.
80
MFish considers there are merits in these proposed measures, but the Act explicitly requires
you to set a TAC that rebuilds the stock to a level at or above BMSY. MFish agrees that
these additional measures could further support the rebuild in the hoki fishery and is willing
to work with industry through the DWG to investigate the merits of these options.
QMA split
81
You may also wish to consider in future managing the east: west split through the statutory
regime i.e. splitting the HOK1 quota management area (QMA) into two or more quota
management system (QMS) stocks. MFish considers this could be a valid option for your
consideration in the future but is outside the scope of this current review of HOK1
sustainability measures. Provided the voluntary catch split arrangement continues to have
integrity, MFish has no concerns in this respect.
Catch rates in the 2007 winter fishery
82
Reports from both industry and the MFish Observer Programme indicate there have been
good hoki catches, both in terms of size (average size around 75 cm) and in terms of volume
(bags typically greater than 30 tonnes), from the winter hoki fishery on the WCSI in recent
months.
83
It is unclear what is causing these good catch rates but MFish believes it could be the 2002,
2003 and a portion of the 2004 year classes dominating the spawning biomass. These three
year classes, while still below the long term recruitment average, are the strongest year
classes seen in the hoki fishery in recent years. They are also a significant improvement on
the 1995 – 2001 year classes which were responsible for the poor catches rates and small
fish size acknowledged by fishers who fished the WCSI during the last 5 – 7 years.
84
MFish is confident that the status of the western hoki stock as described in the 2006-07
stock assessment (and summarised in this paper) remains valid. For this reason, MFish
recommends you do not treat the improved catch rates as an indication of a western stock
recovery, nor as an indication that the 2006-07 stock assessment misdiagnosed the state of
the hoki fishery.
TACC and Allowances
85
The TAC must be apportioned between the relevant sectors and interests set out under the
provisions of s 20 and 21 of the Act. In varying the TACC, section 21 prescribes that you
shall make allowances for Maori customary non-commercial interests, recreational fishing
interests, and for any other sources of fishing-related mortality. In determining these
allowances, the Minster should consider how the allowances will enable people to provide
for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing (as provided for in the Purpose of the Act).
Page 174 of 397
86
Recreational and customary fishers do not target hoki as it is predominantly an offshore
fishery and there is no data on actual customary and recreational catches of hoki in recent
years. However, there are references to customary catches of hoki occurring in the past.
MFish also considers it likely a small amount of hoki is caught by recreational fishers while
fishing for other middle depth species. An allowance of 20 tonnes each for both
recreational and customary fishers is currently provided for and MFish considers these
allowances should continue.
87
MFish proposes a nominal allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of an
additional 1,000 tonnes for HOK1. This allowance is required to take account of hoki
mortality that is not reported such as hoki lost due to net bursts or dumping of damaged
hoki.
88
This means that under both Option 1 and Option 3 the TACC will be set at 100,000 tonnes.
Under Option 2, the TACC will be set at 80,000 tonnes.
Deemed Values
89
MFish consulted on amended deemed value rates for hoki as part of the wider deemed value
review IPP. Further information on the submissions received and subsequent proposed
deemed value rates can be found in the Deemed Value Review FAP that accompanies this
paper.
90
There were diverging views on where the deemed value rates for hoki should be set for the
coming season. Sanford is clear in their submission that they only support a reduction to the
hoki TAC if this is matched by an increase to the deemed values rates above the level that
was proposed in the deemed value IPP. In summary, MFish is recommending the following
deemed value rates for as of 1 October 2007:
a)
Annual deemed value rates set at $0.90 per kg.
b)
Interim deemed value rates set at $0.45 per kg.
c)
Differential deemed value rates set at $1.30 per kg and will apply, at the end of the
fishing season, to all catch at 102% of ACE holdings.
Future Management
91
MFish considers that a rebuild of HOK1 should be based on a coherent long-term
management plan rather than implementing annual management measures as part of the
sustainability round. This can be achieved through the fishery plan process and MFish and
the DWG are working collaboratively on developing a fishery plan for hoki. This plan will
build on the initiatives in place for the 2007 winter fishery and will continue to focus on the
necessary rebuild of the western stock. The hoki fishery plan should be available for your
approval in time for the start of the 2008-09 fishing season.
Compliance Issues
92
The proposed management options discussed above are unlikely to result in increased
compliance risks in the fishery but continued monitoring of vessel reporting, particularly of
Page 175 of 397
small hoki and bycatch species, is required.
Statutory considerations
93
When setting or varying the TAC and TACC under the Act, you are required to consider a
series of principles and factors.
94
Section 13 – Total Allowable Catch: MFish recommends that you consider the TAC
under 13(2)(b) to enable HOK1 to be restored to at or above Bmsy. The specific
considerations set out in s13(2)(b) include having regard to the interdependence of stocks,
the biological characteristics of the stock and any environmental conditions affecting the
stock. The proposed TAC options, and corresponding proposed periods of rebuild, have also
taken into account:
a)
The interdependence of stocks for HOK1 (as required by s 13(2)(b)(i)). The HOK 1
fishery entails widespread interactions with other species through bycatch (hake,
ling, silver warehou, among others) that are managed through the quota management
system. Since none of the options proposed in this IPP will result in an increase in
the TACC for hoki, MFish considers the interdependence of stocks are not affected
by the management options proposed;
b)
The biological characteristics of hoki (as required under s 13(2)(b)(ii)). The hoki
stock assessment model incorporates current knowledge on the biological
characteristics of hoki when determining what levels of TAC and catch splits are
acceptable.
c)
Environmental factors affecting HOK1 such as surface water temperature, and the
southern oscillation index, may affect hoki recruitment (as required under s
13(2)(b)(ii)). It is unclear what is the cause of the current low recruitment in the
current population. SeaFIC and other submissions suggest it is caused by
environmental effects, but MFish considers the best available information on this
issue to be indeterminate of such a link.
95
Section 13(4): Social, cultural and economic factors: You must consider relevant social,
economic and cultural factors when assessing the TAC options set out in this IPP. Options 1
and 3 which will retain the TAC and TACC at 101,040 and 100,000 tonnes respectively are
likely to provide for greater utilisation and economic benefits. Option 2 will constrain
utilisation and reduce revenues from the fishery as it proposes a 20% reduction to the hoki
TAC and TACC. Relevant social, economic and cultural factors have been discussed in the
section of the paper headed “Analysis of management options”.
96
Section 8 – Purpose of the Act: MFish considers that all options presented in this paper,
provide for utilisation in the hoki fishery while ensuring stock sustainability. Each
management option proposed contributes to the rebuild of HOKI through a rebuild of the
western stock. Option 2 is the more cautious management option and is likely to move
HOK1 towards Bmsy in the shortest period but the lower TAC and TACC proposed under
this option will impact on utilisation.
97
Retaining the TACC at 100,000 tonnes, under Options 1 and 3, give effect to a slight rebuild
but will allow for current levels of utilisation. The proposal to alter the catch split
arrangement also under Option 3 will ensure the rebuild occurs at a faster rate than under
Page 176 of 397
Option 1. However, while each management option will effect some improvement to the
status of the western stock none will deliver a full rebuild of the western stock in the shortterm – this will only be achieved through improved stock recruitment in future years.
98
You must weigh up providing for the utilisation of HOK1 with ensuring its sustainability –
however, ensuring sustainability is the bottom line and the ultimate objective. MFish
believes that all three options proposed in this paper will ensure sustainability although the
rate of rebuild of the stock will vary. In choosing the appropriate management option you
must decide if the greater rate of rebuild provided by Option 2 justifies the impact on
utilisation that a TAC cut of 20% will produce.
99
Section 5(a) International and Settlement obligations: Decision-makers are required to
act in a manner consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing,
including the Law of the Sea and the Fish Stocks agreement as well as regional fishery
management agreements. Decision-makers must also act in a manner consistent with the
provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. MFish
considers that the proposed options are consistent with both New Zealand’s international
obligations relating to fishing and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries
Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
100
Section 9 – Environmental principles and section 11(1)(a) – Effects on the aquatic
environment: You must take into account any effects of fishing on any stock and the
aquatic environment. You must also take into account the following principles:
101
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.
The hoki trawl fishery is extensive throughout the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the
key potential effects of fishing on the environment and marine ecosystem are considered
below. MFish considers none of the options proposed are likely to impact on the long–term
viability of associated or dependent species, biological diversity of the aquatic environment
or on habitats of particular significance for fisheries management.
Seabirds
102
Although trawl vessels operating in the hoki fishery are known to interact with seabirds an
accurate estimation of total captures is difficult. This is because observer coverage in the
fleet is limited and vessel returns are highly sporadic and often unrepresentative of the fleet.
Since the proposed management options will not result in an overall increase in fishing
effort they are therefore unlikely to have additional adverse implications for seabirds.
However, the bulk of estimated captures come from the Chatham Rise and Cook Strait
fisheries and the impact of any move to shift effort from the WCSI to these fisheries, as per
Option 3, should be considered. As part of the voluntary management measures in place
across the hoki fleet vessels are required to adhere to agreed offal management practices.
This is in addition to the regulatory requirements for vessels to use bird mitigation devices.
MFish considers this should sufficiently mitigate seabird interactions in the fishery.
Page 177 of 397
Fish bycatch
103
The main commercial bycatch species in hoki target fisheries are hake, ling, silver warehou
and jack mackerel. None of the management options proposed in this paper recommend an
increase in fishing effort although under Option 3 there will be a shift in effort from the
western fishing grounds to the eastern grounds. Under Options 1 and 2 the impact on
bycatch species from the proposed management measure is likely to be small. Under Option
3 the shift in effort to the eastern stock could result in increased effort in the SWA3 and
SWA4 fisheries. However, the proposed options to reduce fishing effort from the western
stock (Options 2 and Options 3) will likely result in a reduction in fishing effort in the
WCSI ling fishery which has been consistently over caught in the last 10 years.
Marine mammals
104
The hoki fishery is responsible for fur seal mortalities particularly in the WCSI fishery (386
fur seals were estimated captured in the 2005-06 fishing season.). None of the options
proposed will result in an increase in fishing effort so the adverse effects of hoki trawling on
the fur seal population are unlikely to increase. Options 2 and 3 both propose a reduction in
fishing effort on the WCSI fishery which may have a positive impact on the number of fur
seal interactions in that area. However, information is scarce on the size of the fur seal
population that inhabits the WCSI so it is not possible to truly asses the impact from the
management options proposed. MFish does note that as part of the voluntary management
measures in place across the hoki fleet industry are required to adhere to a range of
measures to limit fur seal interactions.
Benthic habitat
105
Hoki is a middle depth species and catches from the western stock are predominantly
harvested using mid-water trawl gear. However the target hoki fishery on the Chatham Rise
is carried out extensively using bottom trawling gear. This activity is likely to result in trawl
disturbances which may alter the benthic habitat. None of the management options propose
an increase in fishing effort and while Option 3 does recommend that effort is shifted to the
eastern stock the focus of this effort should be in the Cook Strait fishery where hoki is
harvested using mid-water gear.
106
Section 11(1)(b): Before varying the HOK1 TAC you must take into account any existing
controls that apply to the stock. Apart from the existing TAC, TACC, and allowances, other
important existing fisheries management controls for HOK1 include a restriction on vessels
greater in size than 46m fishing up to 5 nautical miles of the coastline.
107
Section 11(1)(c): Before varying the HOK1 TAC you must take into account the natural
variability of the stock. As discussed in the IPP, the hoki fishery is prone to fluctuations in
biomass over time due to variable recruitment.
108
Sections 11(2)(a) and 11(2)(b): Before varying the TAC for HOK1, you must have regard
to any provisions of any regional policy or plan under the Resource Management Act 1991
and any management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1997 that apply to the
coastal marine area and you consider relevant. MFish is not aware of any provisions
applicable to the coastal marine area known to exist in any policy statement or plan under
the Resource Management Act 1991, or any management strategy or plan under the
Conservation Act 1987, that are relevant to the or varying of the TAC for HOK1.
Page 178 of 397
109
Section 11(2)(c): Before varying the TAC for HOK1, you must have regard to sections 7
and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act that apply to the coastal marine area. Although
HOK1 quota management area encompasses the waters of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park,
the distribution of both hoki and its fishery do not intersect with the park boundaries.
Therefore there are no relevant considerations under the Hauraki Marine Park Act 2000.
110
Section 11(2A)(a) & (c): Before varying the TAC for HOK1, you must take into account
the effects of any conservation or fisheries service, or any decision not to require such
services. MFish does not consider that existing or proposed services materially affect the
proposed TAC options. No decision has been made not to require a service that would be
relevant to the HOK1 fishery.
111
Section 11(2A)(b) – Fisheries plans: Before varying the TAC for HOK1, you must take
account of any relevant fisheries plans. There is currently no fisheries plan in place in the
hoki fishery. However, work is progressing on developing a fisheries plan for this stock and
this is discussed in the IPP in the section on future management.
112
Section 20 and 21 specify a number of matters that must be taken into account when setting
or varying a TACC. The allowances for Maori customary non-commercial interests,
recreational fishing interests, and for any other sources of fishing-related mortality, before
setting the TACC, are discussed in the section under “TAC allowances”. As noted, hoki is a
predominantly offshore fishery and where there is likely to be little customary and
recreational catch. In assessing the proposed allowances and the TACC options, you must
consider how the TACC and allowances would enable people to provide for their social,
cultural and economic wellbeing. In light of that requirement, MFish is satisfied that the
continuation of the small allowance of 20 tonnes each for both recreational and customary
fishers and the corresponding proposed TACCs are appropriate.
113
Section 21(4) requires that any mätaitai reserve or closure/restriction under s 186A to
facilitate customary fishing be taken into account. There are mätaitai reserves and s 186A
measures in HOK1, but none intersect with the HOK1 fishery. No area has been closed or
fishing method restricted (that affects the fishery within HOK1) under the customary fishing
provisions of the Act.
114
Section 21(5) requires that any regulations to prohibit fishing made under s 311 be taken
into account when setting allowances for recreational interests. No restrictions under s 311
have been placed on fishing in any area within HOK1.
115
Section 75 – Minister to set deemed value rates: New deemed value rates are proposed
for the hoki stock for the 2007-08 fishing season. These new rates should ensure that fishers
have the necessary incentive to balance all their catch with ACE as per s. 75 (2)(a) of the
Act. These considerations are discussed in more detail in relation to HOK1 in the Deemed
Value Review FAP that accompanies this paper.
116
Section 10 – Information principles: The information principles of the Act require that
decisions be based on the best available information, taking into account any uncertainty in
that information, and applying caution when information is uncertain, unreliable, or
inadequate. The Act also requires that the absence or uncertainty of information should not
be used as a reason to postpone, or fail to take, any measure to achieve the purpose of the
Act. MFish considers that the information used to support the HOK1 proposals is currently
the best available. The management options proposed in this FAP have been developed
Page 179 of 397
based on information from a full hoki stock assessment. Issues surrounding uncertainty of
information have been considered as part of the stock assessment process. The model runs
used to develop these management options have been based on recent hoki recruitment
levels which is a cautious approach, as below average recruitment occurred in the western
stock from 1995 to 2003.
Page 180 of 397
Summary of costs and benefits associated with management options for
HOK1 for the 2007-08 fishing season
Option 1
Costs
Benefits
•
Less certainty that HOK1 will rebuild
in under five years
•
Current levels of utilisation in the
fishery continue – approximately $156
million export value
•
No rebuild of the western stock over
a five year period.
•
Existing hoki fleet structure can
continue
Option 2
Costs
Benefits
•
Potential loss of export earnings in
the order of $30 million.
•
Lower overall exploitation rate across
the stock, means greater certainty
that HOK1 is likely to rebuild within
the five year period
•
Possible implications on overseas
supply contacts for other New
Zealand species
•
Rationalisation in the sector may see
the exit of certain operators who have
typically operated on the margins,
through the use of deemed values,
from the fishery.
•
Viability of some of the medium-sized
seafood companies is questionable
•
Possible reduced environmental
impacts should effort be reduced
•
Potential loss of 1,000 – 2,000 FTEs
(according to some submitters)
•
Greater rebuild of the western stock is
likely.
•
Inability for fishers to source
sufficient ACE to cover hoki bycatch
when other species are being
targeted e.g. ling and hake.
•
Possible increased pressure on other
deepwater stocks as fishing
companies try to shift fishing effort to
other fisheries to remain viable.
•
Period of rationalisation likely in
terms of the number of vessels
operating in the fishery and in terms
of NZ based processing capability –
this could lead to job losses in
regional communities.
181 of 397
Option 3
Costs
Benefits
•
Less certainty that HOK1 will rebuild
in under five years
•
Current levels of utilisation in the
fishery continue – approximately
$156 million export value
•
Some companies who traditionally
fish on the western stock will have to
alter current fishing operations
•
Possible reduced environmental
impact in the western fishery if effort
is reduced
•
No rebuild of the western stock over
a five year period.
•
Existing fleet structure can continue
•
Possible impact on sea bird
populations from increased effort on
the eastern stock
•
Possible risk to juvenile hoki if greater
effort is applied to the eastern stock
182 of 397
183 of 397
OEO (OEO 1) – FINAL ADVICE
Figure 1: Oreo Quota Management Areas
Executive Summary
1
This advice paper presents an option to reduce the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Total
Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) for OEO 1.
2
The Initial Position Paper (IPP) proposed two options: status quo (TAC and TACC of 5,033
tonnes) and a reduction of approximately 50% (TAC and TACC of 2,500 tonnes). All
submissions, including one representing the owners of 95.95% of OEO 1 quota, supported a
reduction of the TAC and TACC.
3
The OEO 1 TACC has been well undercaught for the past few years. Although information
on stock status and the sustainability of the harvest is uncertain, information based on catch
history and current catch levels suggests that the current TAC and TACC is too high.
4
The best available information, including the biological characteristics of the species and
current catch levels, supports the catch limit reduction option.
The Issue
5
Although information on stock status and the sustainability of the harvest is uncertain, if
you agree that the sustainability risk that would result from catch at the level of the current
TAC and TACC is unacceptably high, then a TAC and TACC reduction is appropriate.
184 of 397
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
6
The IPP proposed the following options:
•
Option one: status quo. Retain the current TAC of 5,033 tonnes for the 2007–08 fishing
year, and retain the current TACC of 5,033 tonnes and zero allowances for customary,
recreational and other fishing related mortality.
•
Option two: 50% reduction. Reduce the TAC by approximately 50% to 2,500 tonnes
effective 1 October 2007, and within that TAC, reduce the TACC to 2,500 tonnes and
zero allowances for customary, recreational and other fishing related mortality. A 2,500
TACC is just above the 5-year average catch for OEO 1.
Final Proposal
7
MFish recommends that you:
AGREE TO
a. Reduce the TAC by approximately 50% to 2,500 tonnes;
AND
b. Retain allowances for customary, recreational and other fishing related mortality at zero;
AND
c. Reduce the TACC to 2,500 tonnes.
Consultation
8
The decision on the TAC is made under section 13 of the Fisheries Act and the TACC under
section 20. Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations
representative of those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of
fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Maori, environmental,
commercial, and recreational interests. This is consistent with the obligations under s 12.
Submissions Received
9
Submissions regarding this proposal were received from:
•
Deepwater Group Limited (DWG)
•
Environment and Conservation Organisation of NZ Inc. (ECO)
•
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (RFC)
•
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc. (RF&B)
185 of 397
10
•
Sanford Limited (Sanford)
•
The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd. (SeaFIC)
All submissions supported Option 2, except the ECO submission. Shareholders owning
95.95% of OEO 1 quota unanimously support a TACC cut of 50%. ECO supported a 1 000
tonne TACC. RFC did not specify which option it supported, although it did state a
preference for stronger measures than proposed by the IPP.
Rationale for Management Options
11
Commercial fisheries occur for black oreo (BOE) and smooth oreo (SSO). Oreos are
managed as a species group, which includes spiky oreo (SOR) and warty oreo (WOE). The
Chatham Rise (OEO 3A and OEO 4) is the main fishing area, but other fisheries occur the
Bounty/Pukaki area (OEO 6) and in OEO 1. The main OEO 1 fisheries are Southland on
the east coast of the South Island (with very small catches from OEO3A) and in the
Puysegur-Snares-Macquarie Ridge area south of the South Island.
12
OEO 1 quota owners voluntarily restrict smooth oreo catches from the Southland fishery to
400 t. When the limit is reached, the Deepwater Group Limited requests that operators
cease fishing oreo in that area.
13
Biological characteristics of oreo include:
Smooth oreo
Black oreo
Maximum estimated age
86 years
153 years
Estimate age at maturity for females
31 years
27 years
Yields relative to stock size
14
Likely to be low because of low
productivity of oreos
These characteristics are similar to those of orange roughy, another slow-growing, low
productivity fish. Because of their characteristics, sustainable yields from oreos are
estimated to be low, and it is easy to overestimate the unfished biomass. It is difficult to
accurately specify a time stream of future catches and catch limits that will result in an
orderly fishing-down phase to achieve target biomass.
186 of 397
15
For Southland smooth oreo, quantitative biomass estimates are uncertain, and not
considered suitable as a basis for providing management advice. The analysis from 2004
suggests that the mature virgin biomass was probably small, less than 21,000 t, and that the
stock was unlikely to be able to support a large fishery.
16
For OEO 1 black and smooth oreo, it is not known if recent catch level or the current TACC
are sustainable, or will allow the stock to move towards a size that will support the
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).
17
Over the past five years, the OEO 1 TACC has been well undercaught, and catches have
been declining each year:
18
19
64
65
Year
Catch
% Caught
2001/02
4,197
83%
2002/03
3,034
60%
2003/04
1,703
34%
2004/05
1,025
20%
2005/06
850
17%
The catch has been steadily declining for a variety of possible reasons, including:
a)
Reduced abundance of oreos.
b)
Industry ceasing to fish when the smooth oreo limit is reached in Southland. Since
the majority of catch comes from Southland (in the order of 70% in recent years),
when this limit is reached, there are few other economically viable fishing grounds
to target.
c)
Greater fishing effort is not financially viable. There has been a steady decline in the
number of vessels engaged in the OEO 1 fishery.
d)
Closure of Puysegur. When it was open, Puysegur contributed a substantial portion
of the OEO 1 catch. Industry agreed to cease fishing oreo in Puysegur from 1
October 1998, as a part of the industry closure of orange roughy in the Puysegur
area. However, the limit for OEO 1 was not significantly reduced to account for the
removal of effort from Puysegur (the TACC was reduced from 6,044 t in 1997/98 to
the current level of 5,033 t in 1998/99).
e)
Closure of ORH 7A in 2000/01. From 1977 through to 2000, oreo was a bycatch of
the orange roughy target fishery in ORH 7A. 64 For 2000 to 2003, there was no oreo
catch in ORH 7A. 65 The limit for OEO 1 was not reduced to account for the
removal of effort from the ORH 7A fishery.
There is no reason to believe that the decrease in catch is a result of non-compliance (nonreporting). There are no particular compliance concerns with this fishery.
New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2002/40
New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2005/48
187 of 397
Assessment of Management Options
TAC and TACC
20
Although there are a number of reasons for declining catch, given the biological
characteristics of the stock, there is cause for concern. MFish recommends that you set a
TAC under s 13(2)(a), to maintain the stock at or above a level that can produce the
maximum sustainable yield. Since the catches are currently well under the limit, there
would be greater stock sustainability risk – that the catch would not maintain the stock at
BMSY – if catches reached the TACC. That is, given the decline in catches, there is risk that
the TAC as currently set will not maintain the stock at or above BMSY.
21
MFish considers that the limited information, current levels of catch, and the biological
characteristics of the species, together suggest that a cautious approach to catch limits is
appropriate. The inherent difficulties in information gathering for oreos, coupled with the
relatively small biomass and fishery for OEO 1, mean that more information or more certain
information is unlikely in the short-term.
22
If you consider that the sustainability risk that would result from catch at the level of the
current TACC is unacceptably high, then a reduction in the TACC is warranted.
23
If you choose to reduce the TAC, then you will also need to reduce the TACC. When
varying the TACC you must allow for non-commercial fishing interests in the stock such as
customary, recreational and other fishing related mortality. As OEO is a deepwater species
there are no known customary or recreational interests; therefore MFish recommends
providing no allowance for these interests. No allowance has been made in the past for
fishing related mortality, and MFish does not propose a shift from this position at the
current time. Therefore if you reduce the TAC, MFish recommends varying the TACC by
the same amount.
24
A reduction in the TACC by 50% will provide greater certainty over the longer term that
OEO 1 will be managed at or above BMSY, in light of the uncertainties in the best available
information, including uncertain stock information. It is, however, not possible to ascertain
with any certainty the actual or likely effect of the proposed TAC (and TACC) reduction on
the biomass and sustainability of OEO 1, and is best characterised as a risk mitigation
approach.
25
The ECO submission proposes a greater reduction, with a TAC of 1,000 tonnes. This would
reduce the catch limit to about the current catch.
26
MFish and all submitters agree that a reduction is appropriate. The extent of that reduction
should be guided by your view on the relative sustainability benefits and utilisation impacts.
In MFish’s view, the appropriate step at this point is to remove the headroom (quota in
excess of catch), using an average of recent catches to retain some flexibility for operators.
To reduce the TAC and TACC to 1,000 tonnes (an 80% reduction) would be a drastic step
given the utilisation consequences.
27
Reducing a TAC usually affects utilisation by commercial fishers, and would usually lead to
reduction in economic wellbeing. However, in this case, the full TACC is not being caught,
and the reduction proposed will substantially reduce this ‘headroom’. The reduction would
have a consequential economic benefit in that the cost recovery levies for non-attributable
188 of 397
costs imposed on OEO 1 quota owners would be reduced. Current cost recovery levies for
OEO 1 are approximately $150,000; a reduced TACC could significantly reduce this cost to
OEO 1 quota owners.
28
29
Industry supports a 50% reduction in the TACC for the following reasons:
a)
There is a mismatch between annual catches and the TACC.
b)
The perceived status of the stock in relation to the TACC.
c)
A reduction is a reasonable precautionary measure in light of the unavailability of
science on which to base catch limits.
d)
To rationalise costs given that MFish levies are TACC-based and the fishery is
realising only a fraction of the TACC.
A 50% reduction is appropriate as the economic consequences are negligible, is supported
by quota owners, and reflects the declining catch. MFish will continue to monitor this
stock, and will advise you if future adjustments are required. Based on best available
information, MFish recommends Option 2
Other Management Issues
30
The ECO and RF&B submissions recommended that OEO 1 be split into smooth and black
oreos, and that OEO 1 be split into a northern and southern area. While subdividing a QMA
into multiple QMAs and dividing a multi-species stock into multiple stocks are permitted
under the Act, it must be done either at the request of quota owners holding 75% of the
stock, or if the Minister is satisfied that the alteration “is necessary to ensure sustainability”.
No such request has been made by quota owners, and no analysis has been done on whether
that particular management response would be ‘necessary’.
31
The IPP consultation related only to a possible TAC and TACC reduction, not on a revised
approach for the management of oreos. Any alteration of QMAs requires a separate
analysis, input and participation of tangata whenua, and a s 12 consultation.
32
MFish acknowledges that ECO and RF&B have consistently proposed a species and/or
QMA split for oreos, most recently as part of their submission for the October 2003
sustainability round for OEO 4. At the time, MFish responded that in the absence of a
fishery plan “MFish recommends that [the Minister] pursue a legislative catch split or other
appropriate measures as necessary to manage black and smooth oreo”. The Plenary agrees
that the three oreo species could be managed separately. MFish still considers that the
broader issue of the most appropriate future management approach is best addressed
through a fisheries plan; should this not eventuate, then other measures such as a species or
QMA split could be considered.
189 of 397
Appendix 1: Statutory Considerations
Purpose of the Act: section 8
33
Under the purpose of the Act, you must provide for the utilisation of oreo while ensuring
sustainability. Ensuring sustainability is ultimate objective. There are sustainability
concerns with the current TAC and TACC for OEO 1. Option 2 provides a more cautious
approach than the status quo. Based on the best available information, this option increases
the likelihood that the harvest will be sustainable over the long term. However, there
remains a high degree of uncertainty about the level at which harvest of the stock is
sustainable.
34
“Utilisation” means conserving, using, enhancing and developing fisheries resources to
enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. There are no
known adverse economic consequences of a TAC reduction under option 2, and there would
be some consequential cost savings from reduced cost recovery levies. There is no known
recreational or customary fishing for oreo, and therefore no allowance has been provided.
There is a broad social benefit from the maintenance of oreo populations, which is promoted
through a sustainable fishery. There are no known cultural factors relevant to sustainability
or management decisions.
International obligations and the Treaty of Waitangi: section 5
35
Section 5 of the Act requires you to act in a manner consistent with New Zealand’s
international obligations relating to fishing; and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi
(Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. Relevant international obligations include the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the United Nations Fish Stocks
Agreement as well as regional fishery management agreements. MFish considers that in
making the proposed reduction to the TAC and TACC you would be acting consistently
with section 5.
Environmental principles: section 9
36
Section 9 requires you to take into account the following environmental principles when
making his decisions on whether to vary the TAC and the TACC: (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.
37
The specific nature and extent of the effects of OEO 1 fishing are not known. No specific
concerns have been raised relating to ss 9(a) and (b) that would be relevant to setting the
TAC or TACC for OEO 1. MFish is not currently aware of any habitat of particular
significance for fisheries management that should be protected in the area in which OEO1
stock are present (s 9(c)).
Information principles: section 10
38
Section 10 of the Act sets out information principles you must follow when making his
decisions on varying the TAC and TACC. MFish considers that the information used to
support the proposed options for OEO 1 is the best available (s 10(a)). MFish is not aware
190 of 397
of any other information that could be made available without unreasonable cost, effort, or
time. Given the level of uncertainty, as outlined in the body of this FAP, you should be
cautious (ss 10(b) and (c)). This uncertainty has not been used as a reason for postponing or
taking any measure to achieve the purpose of the Act. Therefore, this FAP considers
whether a TAC and TACC reduction is required and what the appropriate level of reduction
may be (s 10(d)).
Effects on the aquatic environment: section 11(1)(a)
39
Section 11(1)(a) requires you to take into account any effects of fishing on any stock and the
aquatic environment when setting or varying any sustainability measure. Information
relating to the effects on the aquatic environment is provided above in the section
addressing the environmental principles. As orange roughy is commonly intermixed with
oreo, MFish would be concerned about the potential increase in orange roughy catch should
the OEO 1 TAC and TACC be unchanged. MFish has considered the effects of the OEO 1
options on fish bycatch, benthic effects, seabirds and marine mammals. The proposed
options are not likely to have any adverse implications for any of these elements of the
aquatic environment.
Existing controls that apply to the stock: section 11(1)(b)
40
Section 11(1)(b) requires you to take into account any existing controls under the Act that
apply to the stock or area concerned when setting or varying any sustainability measure.
There is currently a TAC and TACC set for the stock there are no other controls on the
stock imposed under the Act.
Natural variability of the stock: section 11(1)(c)
41
Section 11(1)(c) requires you to take into account the natural variability of the stock
concerned when setting or varying any sustainability measure. Best available information is
that oreo are not highly variable.
Resource Management Act 1991: section 11(2)(a)
42
Section 11(2)(a) requires you to have regard to any provisions of any regional policy
statement, regional plan, or proposed regional plan under the Resource Management Act
1991, when setting or varying any sustainability measure. MFish is not aware of any
relevant considerations under any of these instruments that apply to the variation of a TAC
for OEO 1.
Conservation Act 1987: section 11(2)(b)
43
Section 11(2)(b) requires you to have regard to any provisions of any management strategy
or management plan made under the Conservation Act 1987 that apply to the coastal marine
area and are considered by you to be relevant. MFish is not aware of any relevant
considerations relating to any provisions of any management strategy or management plan
made under the Conservation Act 1987.
191 of 397
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000: section 11(2)(c)
44
Section 11(2)(c) requires you to have regard to sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine
Park Act 2000. Although the OEO 1 quota management area encompasses the waters of the
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, the distribution of oreo and the fishery for it do not intersect
with the Park boundaries. MFish considers that there are no relevant concerns regarding
sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.
Conservation or fisheries services and fisheries plans: section 11(2A)
45
Section 11(2A)(a) to (c) requires you to take into account any conservation services or
fisheries services and any relevant approved fisheries plan; and any decisions not to require
conservation services or fisheries services. MFish does not consider that existing or
proposed conservation or fisheries services materially affect the proposed TAC options.
There is no approved fisheries plan for OEO 1.
Interdependence of stocks: section 13(2)
46
Section 13(2) requires that you set the TAC having regard to the interdependence of stocks.
Available information about the interdependence of stocks is highly uncertain, and there is
no evidence to suggest that this consideration should affect any option.
Social, cultural and economic factors: section 13(3)
47
In determining the way in which and rate at which a stock that is currently below or above
BMSY is moved towards BMSY, section 13(3) requires you to have regard to social, cultural,
and economic factors you consider relevant. Your decision for OEO 1 is whether the
current TAC (if caught) is set at a level that will maintain the stock at or above BMSY. Based
on available information, MFish does not consider the stock to be below BMSY.
Matters to be taken into account in varying any total allowable commercial
catch: section 21(1)
48
Under section 21(1), in varying any TACC you shall have regard to the TACC for that stock
and shall allow for Maori customary non-commercial fishing interests, recreational interests
and all other mortality to that stock caused by fishing. Section 21(4) requires the Minister to
take into account any mätaitai reserve in the relevant quota management area, any area
closure or any fishing method restriction or prohibition in the relevant quota management
area that is imposed by the Minister under section 186A. Section 21(5) requires the
Minister to take into account any regulations that prohibit or restrict fishing in any area for
which regulations have been made following a recommendation made by the Minister under
section 311.
49
There is no known non-commercial fishing for OEO 1, and therefore no allowance is made
for recreational or customary fishers. Other sources of fishing-related mortality have been
considered when setting the TACC. There are no relevant mätaitai reserves, or closures
under section 186, or regulations made under section 311.
192 of 397
193 of 397
SQUID (SQU 1T) - FINAL ADVICE
1
This paper provides MFish final advice on management measures for the SQU1T fishery for
2007-08.
Executive summary
1
SQU1T is managed under section 14 of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act) which means the
total allowable catch for the stock is set without reference to maximum sustainable yield
(MSY). Squid is also listed on the Third Schedule of the Act which permits fishers to seek
an in-season total allowable catch (TAC) increase from the Minister of Fisheries.
2
Some industry quota owners have recently requested a permanent increase of 30% to the
SQU1T total allowable commercial catch (TACC) so as to remove the effort and
uncertainty they consider is associated with seeking an annual in-season increase. Following
this request MFish consulted on three options for the TAC and TACC ranging from the
194 of 397
status quo of 44, 740.88 tonnes (Option 1) to increasing the TAC and TACC by 20% to
53,689.06 tonnes (Option 2) and by 30% to 58,183.14 tonnes(Option 3).
3
All submissions received, including those from quota owners who had made the request,
support retaining the existing TAC and TACC (Option 1). This is also the MFish preferred
option. Consideration of an increase should occur within a fisheries plan for squid.
4
You are still permitted to increase the TAC and TACC if you consider it appropriate to do
so at this time. However in doing so you must be satisfied that any increase in fishing effort
associated with a TAC and TACC increase will better meet the Purpose of the Act and will
not have an adverse effect on seabirds, marine mammals and finfish bycatch associated with
the SQU1T fishery.
5
MFish believes that existing management measures, particularly with regard to seabird
bycatch would sufficiently mitigate any adverse effects on the aquatic environment that may
arise following a SQU1T TAC and TACC increase.
Consultation
6
Your decision whether or not to adjust the TAC/TACC for SQU1T is a decision under
sections 14 and 21 of the Act and therefore the consultation requirements of sections 12 and
21(2) apply.
7
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of
those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the
aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Maori, environmental, commercial,
and recreational interests.
8
MFish posted all IPPs on the MFish website, and notified stakeholders by letter, which was
sent to approximately 350 companies, organisations and individuals.
Submissions received
9
Submissions were received from the following:
a)
Deepwater Group Ltd.
b)
Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc
c)
Independent Fisheries Ltd
d)
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council
e)
Sanford Ltd
f)
Seafood Industry Council Ltd
g)
Sea Resources Company Ltd
h)
Solander and Aurora Group of Companies
195 of 397
10
A summary of submissions and copies of the submissions in full are included in Volume 2.
11
All submissions received support retaining the existing TAC and TACC of 44,740.88
tonnes. Those industry members that had requested a permanent increase to the TACC now
believe it should be deferred for a year for consideration as part of the squid fisheries plan
along with the following additional management issues:
12
a)
Possible amalgamation of the SQU1T and SQUIJ fisheries.
b)
Requirement for further research on the biology of the two key squid species,
Nototodarus gouldi and Nototodarus sloanii, and consideration of the different
fisheries management needs of these two species.
Submissions from environmental NGOs and non-commercial fishers also support leaving
the TAC and TACC unchanged.
Summary of options
Initial and Final Proposal
13
The options are unchanged from the IPP. MFish recommends that you:
EITHER
a)
AGREE to retain the existing TAC and TACC of 44,740.88 tonnes. Quota owners
can still request an in-season increase to the TAC and TACC. This option reflects
the status quo. Provide an allowance of zero for non-commercial use and for other
sources of fishing related mortality (MFish recommended option);
OR
b)
AGREE to increase the TAC and TACC for SQU1T by 20%, from 44,740.88 tonnes
to 53,689 tonnes. This option reflects the in-season increases provided to quota
owners in recent fishing seasons. Provide an allowance of zero for non-commercial
use and for other sources of fishing related mortality;
OR
c)
14
AGREE to increase the TAC and TACC by 30%, from 44,740.88 tonnes to
58,163.15 tonnes, as requested by commercial stakeholders. Provide an allowance of
zero for non-commercial use and for other sources of fishing related mortality
However you are not limited to the options detailed above and you are permitted to set the
SQU1T TAC and TACC at any level that you consider best meets your obligations under
the Act.
Background
15
SQU1T is managed under section 14 of the Act which means the TAC for the stock can be
set without reference to MSY. In order to set the TAC without reference to MSY, you must
be satisfied that the purpose of the Act will be better achieved by setting a TAC otherwise
196 of 397
than in accordance with s 13(2). Because of the short life span, rapid growth and high
variability of the squid stock, it is not possible to estimate the squid biomass prior to the
fishing season, and therefore it is appropriate to set the TAC without reference to MSY.
The SQUIT fishery has been managed without reference to MSY in the past, and MFish
sees no reason to depart from this.
16
Squid is also listed on the Third Schedule of the Act which permits fishers to seek an inseason TAC increase from the Minister of Fisheries. The additional ACE associated with
such a TAC increase is allocated to commercial fishers.
17
An in-season increase was sought by and awarded to quota owners in the 2002-03 and
2005-06 fishing seasons. It was also sought and declined in 2004-05 due to concerns that
fishing activity in the SQU1T fishery was adversely affecting the seabird population. An inseason increase was not sought for the current fishing season. MFish believes this was due
to low commodity prices, which would suggest that quota owners believed there were more
profitable ways to deploy the deepwater fleet other than harvesting additional squid.
18
On each occasion when an in-season increase was approved, the TAC increased by 20% for
the remainder of that fishing season. At the start of the following fishing season the TAC
reverted back to its pre-existing level.
19
An important issue in the squid trawl fishery is the interaction between squid trawling and
seabirds. Seabirds feeding on discards or offal behind the stern of the vessel are vulnerable
to being struck by the trawl warps. Seabirds, particularly small birds such as petrels, can
also get entangled in nets during their setting and hauling.
Rationale for management intervention
20
MFish initially considered options for a SQU1T TAC and TACC increase for two reasons.
First, some industry members have expressed concern that the existing process for seeking
an in-season increase takes too long and often the increase decision is received too late in
the season to be of any real benefit. They believe that increasing the TAC permanently
would overcome this problem.
21
Second, acting on stakeholders’ request for an in-season increase is time-consuming and
directs Ministry resources away from other fisheries management issues. Given that in the
majority of past season requests have been approved, MFish does not consider this is the
most effective use of resources.
22
However, it is apparent from the submissions received following consultation of the IPP that
stakeholders do not support increasing the TAC and TACC.
Analysis of management options
23
All submissions support the TAC and TACC remaining unchanged at 44,740.88 tonnes.
While all management options proposed in the IPP continue to have merit and remain
relevant for your consideration, MFish recommends that you agree to Option 1 and retain
the existing SQU1T TAC and TACC.
24
However, you have the option to increase the TAC and TACC if you consider it
197 of 397
appropriate. In addition to providing an option on the status quo (Option 1), MFish also
provided two options for increasing the TAC and TACC, by 20% (Option 2) and by 30%
(Option 3).
Option 1: Status Quo
25
Option 1 will retain the existing TAC and TACC of 44,740.88 tonnes. This will require
stakeholders to seek an in-season TAC increase if squid are abundant during the coming
season and the TACC is limiting utilisation. It is apparent from submissions that
commercial stakeholders are satisfied with this approach.
26
MFish does not consider there will be any new stock sustainability concerns or adverse
environmental effects arising from retaining the status quo. Submissions from
environmental NGOs and non-commercial fishers also support leaving the TAC and TACC
unchanged.
Option 2: TAC and TACC increase of 20%
27
Option 2 provides for a TAC and TACC increase but recommends an increase in line with
the 20% increase that has been given in previous in-season increases. Under this option the
TACC would increase from 44,740.88 tonnes to 53,689 tonnes. Increasing the TACC by
this amount may increase seabird and marine mammal interactions and in choosing this
option you must be confident that mitigation measures are sufficient to limit the risk of
adverse effects arising from these interactions.
Option 3: TAC and TACC increase of 30%
28
This option proposes to increase the TAC and TACC by 30% from 44,740.88 tonnes to
58,163 tonnes. This is the management option originally requested by some members of
industry. Increasing the TACC to this level is likely to have the greatest impact on the
fishery particularly in terms of impact on seabird and marine mammal populations and the
sustainability of bycatch stocks. In choosing this option you must be confident that
mitigation measures are sufficient to limit the risk of adverse effects arising from these
interactions.
Legislative framework
29
In setting the SQU1T TAC under s. 14, you must take into account any effects of fishing on
any stock and the aquatic environment (s11(1)(a)). ‘Aquatic environment’ is defined as
including all aquatic life, which is in turn defined as any species that inhabits water
including seabirds. Part II of the Act (sections 8 – 10) states that part of ‘ensuring
sustainability’ is (s. 8) avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on
the aquatic environment. Section 9(a) requires that you take into account, when acting under
the authority of the Act, the principle that associated or dependent species should be
maintained above a level that ensures their long-term viability. Section 9(b) requires that the
biological diversity of the aquatic environment should be maintained. Therefore there is a
requirement for you to take into account the effects a TAC may have on the aquatic
environment and in the SQU1T case, in particular on finfish bycatch, marine mammals, and
seabirds.
30
Section 15 relates to fishing-related mortality of marine mammals or other wildlife, and
198 of 397
provides you with tools to actively manage the effects of fishing on any protected species.
Section 15 provides that such measures can be implemented by regulation under s. 298 or
by Gazette where a population management plan or limit on fishing-related mortality exists.
Section 11 also provides for the implementation of measures by regulation or Gazette to
address sustainability issues. This has been used previously to regulate the requirement to
deploy bird mitigation devices in trawl fisheries under section 11, and to manage the sea
lion interaction in the 6T fishery under section 15.
31
Under section 14, the TAC is set with reference to the purpose of the Act. The purpose of
the Act (in terms of the definition of ensuring sustainability) imparts an obligation on
decision makers to avoid, remedy and mitigate any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic
environment. Therefore, this FAP presents the relevant information on this issue so that you
can take into account the effects of the proposed TAC options on seabirds, marine mammals
and finfish bycatch (as required by s. 11(1)(a)).
32
However, if you consider the effects can be more appropriately addressed through other
sustainability measures, then MFish recommends that you consider the adoption of such
measures under s. 11 or 15 to actively manage the effect of fishing on a protected species
like seabirds and marine mammals (as has been done in the past). Although effects on the
aquatic environment must be taken into account when determining the TAC, MFish is of the
view that you should consider if sustainability measures other than the TAC are best placed
(most effective, fewest negative economic consequences) to mitigate the problem.
33
In setting the TACC under s. 21 you must allow for Maori customary non-commercial
fishing interests, recreational interests and all other fishing related mortality to the stock.
Risk assessment and mitigation
34
The biological characteristics of the squid stock mean that a permanent increase to the TAC
is unlikely to have any adverse effect on the sustainability of the squid stock but it may
result in an increase in fishing effort in the fishery. It is this potential increase in fishing
effort and the impact that it may have on seabirds, marine mammals and bycatch stocks to
which you must give due consideration.
35
The impact of a possible TAC and TACC increase on the following is discussed below:
a)
The SQU1T stock
b)
Finfish bycatch
c)
Seabirds
d)
Marine mammals.
Impact of a TAC and TACC increase on the SQU1T stock
36
In previous fishing seasons, an in-season TAC increase has only been requested when there
is high squid abundance. It is unclear what effect a higher TACC will have on the fishery in
seasons when abundance is either at or below average, but MFish considers it is likely to
have minimal effect given that squid are only fished if they are present and are
economically viable to fish. When squid abundance is poor the season finishes early and the
199 of 397
squid fleet traditionally moves into the jack mackerel fishery before the start of the hoki
season. MFish considers that in years of poor abundance the increased TACC is unlikely to
have any adverse effects on the sustainability of the SQU1T stock or on the aquatic
environment.
37
Therefore, any adverse effects from an increase to the SQU1T TACC would most likely
occur when squid abundance is high, resulting in an increase in fishing effort so that the full
TACC can be harvested. This increase in effort is likely to come from existing vessels
undertaking more tows rather than new vessels entering the fishery. Vessels operating in
SQU1T form part of the deepwater fleet which fishes all the main deepwater stocks as part
of their annual catch plans. It is unlikely to be cost effective for operators to bring in
additional vessels to the SQU1T fishery in years when abundance is good since it is unclear
what these vessels would do before or after the squid season.
38
There is also the potential risk that fishing effort might increase to match the higher TACC
if squid prices increase or if effort is reduced in other fisheries because of sustainability
concerns. As noted above, MFish considers levels of effort in the squid fishery are
determined by abundance of the squid stock in the first instance. If squid are commanding a
good price and if abundance is good then effort can be expected to increase but this will
likely reduce effort in other deepwater fisheries such as SQU6T as vessels remain longer in
the SQU1T fishery. Effort is unlikely to increase if the value of squid increases without a
rise in abundance as the squid will not be present in the fishery. MFish does note that effort
can be reduced even in years of good abundance if market prices are low – as evidenced in
the 2006-07 fishing season.
39
While a TACC increase may give flexibility to vessel operators to determine if it is more
profitable to remain in the squid fishery, to choose between fishing in 1T and 6T, or to shift
to other deepwater or middle-depth stocks, it is unlikely to result in significant utilisation
gains above those which are already available through the annual in-season increase.
However, it would reduce the potential for an annual transaction cost associated with the inseason request.
Finfish bycatch
40
An increase in fishing effort could also increase catch levels of the key bycatch stocks,
particularly barracouta, silver warehou and jack mackerel. MFish observer data indicates
that squid typically accounts for 67% of the total catch in the SQU1T target fishery.
41
MFish is particularly concerned that increasing the SQU1T TACC will impact on silver
warehou stocks in those years when the full SQU1T TACC is taken; particularly in the
SWA3 and SWA4 fisheries as these fish stocks overlap the key fishing areas in the SQU1T
fishery. Landings in both stocks have been in excess of the TACC in recent years.
42
The current status of the SWA3 and SWA4 stocks is unknown, so it is not possible to
determine the extent of a sustainability risk arising from increased catch levels in the
absence of an updated silver warehou stock assessment. However, MFish believes that a
high proportion of the excess catch is due to fishers deliberately targeting SWA rather than
it being taken as a bycatch in the squid fishery. This is largely due to the absence of
effective deemed value rates in both the SWA3 and SWA4 fisheries. Fishers are choosing to
deliberately target SWA3 and SWA4 because they can pay the deemed value rate and still
generate a profit.
200 of 397
43
MFish is reviewing the deemed value rates of these stocks as part of the wider deemed value
review process. If you choose to increase the deemed value rates for silver warehou for the
coming season MFish considers this should reduce the existing pressure on the SWA3 and
SWA4 stocks, by reducing the incentive to target these species. This would mean that any
increase in effort in SQU1T would have less of an impact on these bycatch stocks.
Seabirds
44
An important issue in the squid trawl fishery is the interaction between squid trawling and
seabirds. The SQU1T fishery historically has the highest recorded seabird bycatch
mortalities in New Zealand fisheries. Squid target fishing in the Stewart-Snares shelf area
(part of SQU1T) has had either the highest or second highest seabird bycatch rates from
2001-02 to 2004-05. Table 1 below details the estimated seabird capture levels at the fleet
level in the SQU1T fishery in recent years.
Table 1: Details of estimated seabird captures from the SQU1T fishery by area, 2003-04 and 2004-05
Area
2003-04
Chatham Rise
Pukaki rise
Puysegur
Snares/Stewart Shelf
SQU6T
Number of tows
584
330
251
4534
<1
21
% observed
5
0
Estimated no. seabirds caught
19
502
93.4
17.5
CV of estimate (%)
-
2596
31
325
16.3
Area
2004-05
Pukaki rise
Chatham Rise
Number of tows
% observed
Estimated no. seabirds caught
CV of estimate (%)
1515
4
-
67
2
-
Puysegur
Snares/Stewart Shelf
SQU6T
292
5861
22
27
33
877
36
12.1
2693
30
414
14.9
Source: 'Incidental capture of seabird species in commercial fisheries in New Zealand waters, 2003-04 and 2004-05'. S. J. Baird and M.H.
Smith. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity report No. 9 2007.
45
Between 2003-04 and 2004-05 there was a statistically significant increase in seabird
captures in the SQU1T fishery from 521 captures to 910 – although fishing effort also
increased during this period (Table 1). The figures from the 2004-05 period also correspond
with the launch of the national plan of action on seabirds (NPOA) which MFish would have
expected to have led to some reduction in the number of seabird captures, as vessel
operators should have implemented a range of voluntary mitigation measures. However,
MFish does acknowledge that it may not have been realistic to expect immediate changes in
such a short time period.
46
There is also some concern that landed seabird captures (which form the basis of figures in
Table 1 above) are only a proportion of total seabird mortalities and if non-landed
mortalities were included, the estimates would increase substantially. The extent of netcaught seabird captures is also unknown. Information on the extent of net captures is
incomplete as not all net captured seabirds are recovered from the vessel but the recent
mitigation device trials in the 2005-06 season estimate that over half of all small seabird
captures occurred in the net. 66 MFish is currently investigating the effect mitigation
measures may have on levels of net captures.
66
“A fleet scale experimental comparison of devices used for reducing the incidental capture of seabirds in trawl
warps.” E.R. Abraham, D.A.J. Middleton, S.M. Waugh, J.P.Pierre, N. Walker, C, Schroder. 2007
201 of 397
47
MFish notes that seabird captures from 2003-04 and 2004-05 predate the implementation of
regulatory bird mitigation devices and recent voluntary initiatives by industry.
48
Regulatory measures have been in place since 2006 and require all vessels operating in the
squid trawl fishery to deploy approved bird mitigation devices (streamer (tori) lines, warp
scarers or bafflers). These devices are meant to keep birds away from the trawl warps,
particularly during net hauling. MFish observers have been monitoring whether these
mitigation devices are being deployed correctly. MFish fishery officers have also been
undertaking routine inspections of vessels to ensure they are carrying the appropriate
mitigation devices and to date compliance with these measures has been good.
49
In 2006 MFish contracted a research project to investigate the performance of the three
mitigation devices in reducing seabird interaction in the squid trawl fishery. 67 The study
used observer data from 18 vessels operating in the squid trawl fishery (SQU6T and
SQU1T). Results indicate that tori lines reduced the warp strike rates for large birds and
small birds to 11% and 17.6% of the rate that would have occurred in the absence of
mitigation measures. This research was carried out on a large sample of the squid trawl fleet
during normal operations and MFish considers the results reflect general operational
practice in the fishery.
50
The study did show that seabirds can also interact with the mitigation devices and that
incidences of seabirds striking tori lines were not uncommon, although no captures were
recorded following these interactions. However, MFish has only anecdotal information on
the severity of tori line strikes at this time but this anecdotal evidence suggest it may be
problematic.
51
In addition to these regulatory measures, industry has also introduced a series of voluntary
measures to help reduce seabird capture and mortality levels. These voluntary measures
focus particularly on offal management as the discharge of offal is a major attraction to
seabirds and is linked to mortalities and captures.
52
In the 2006-07 fishing season the Deepwater Group Ltd (DWG) on behalf of quota owners
implemented vessel management plans (VMP) across all vessels operating in the SQU6T
fishery. Most of the vessels operating in SQU6T also fish in SQU1T. Each VMP sets out a
vessel-specific seabird incidental catch mitigation procedure. These VMPs focus on offal
management and detail the appropriate actions that vessel crew should take to manage
seabird interaction, such as not discharging offal when hauling gear. As part of this
programme each vessel was required to report twice weekly to the DWG, detailing levels of
seabird interactions. 68 MFish observers have had no formal role in assessing whether squid
fishers have followed their VMP, although MFish observers will audit VMPs in the squid
fishery in the future.
53
MFish considers efforts to manage offal discharge are important to mitigate seabird
interactions. The research project comparing mitigation devices, described above, showed
that “the occurrence of warp strikes was strongly associated with the discharge of fish
processing waste’ and that there were few strikes in the absence of discharge”. 69 Evidence
from a recent Falkland Islands trawl study also indicates that preventing the discharge of
67
Ibid.
The DWG are in the process of developing VMPs for the entire deepwater fleet.
69
“A fleet scale experimental comparison of devices used for reducing the incidental capture of seabirds in trawl
warps.” E.R. Abraham, D.A.J. Middleton, S.M. Waugh, J.P.Pierre, N. Walker, C, Schroder. 2007.
68
202 of 397
offal or other waste while gear is in the water would almost eliminate the mortality of
seabirds on the warp. 70
54
Preliminary figures from a DWG report suggest that seabird captures have declined in the
current season in comparison to previous seasons. 71 In summary, this report suggests that
the number of seabird captures has been substantially reduced since 2004-05 and that the
overall rate of capture has reduced by 60% over the same period. These reductions are
attributed to mandatory warp-strike mitigation measures and improved offal management by
industry under VMPs. MFish acknowledges that this information is anecdotal but it is
currently the only information available for the most recent squid season and is therefore of
value. This information will remain anecdotal until data from MFish observers covering the
same period is reviewed by the aquatic environment working group (AEWG). Until all
information has been reviewed it is premature to make conclusive statements on the extent
to which voluntary and regulatory measures are reducing seabird captures rates.
55
Therefore the implications of an increase in squid fishing effort on the seabird population is
difficult to assess given there have been changes in the way vessels operate since the most
recent seabird capture figures were produced. The best available information suggests that
levels of incidental mortality of the magnitude experienced in 2003-4 and 2004-5 are likely
to be detrimental to some species of seabird, particularly if impacts from other new Zealand
fisheries, from overseas fisheries and from non-fishing impacts are taken into account. The
considerable effort by both government and industry to manage seabird interactions is
promising, even if it is too early to make conclusive statements about their effectiveness.
56
Should you approve a TACC increase, you must be satisfied that the measures described
above will adequately mitigate the effects of increased fishing effort on seabird
populations.
57
In the past the possibility of an in-season TAC increase may have encouraged vessel
operators to engage in good seabird mitigation practices. With an increase to the baseline
TACC, you may no longer be able to use a potential in-season increase to influence
voluntary good behaviour. MFish considers the likelihood of industry deliberately choosing
to ease back on voluntary measures is very low. MFish believes that the recent
improvements made to performance will continue through:
a)
Continued monitoring of vessel use of tori lines and bird bafflers.
b)
Working with industry, particularly the DWG, to ensure vessel operators are
managing seabird bycatch appropriately through regulatory and voluntary initiatives.
c)
Monitoring of vessel performance against VMPs through:
i)
The MFish observer programme – Observers auditing vessel performance
against VMPs.
70
Sullivan, B.J., Reid, T.A. and Bugoni, L. 2006b. Seabird mortality of factory trawlers in the Falkland Islands and
beyond, Biological Conservation, 131: 495-504.
71
On 2 April 2007 DWG advised MFish of levels of seabird interactions in SQU6T. Since many of the vessels
operating in SQU6T also operate in 1T this information is relevant.
203 of 397
ii)
d)
A research programme is also underway to assess existing VMPs against best
practice mitigation measures to ensure they are the most appropriate way to
reduce seabird interaction.
Advising industry that if voluntary initiatives are unsuccessful then appropriate
action may be to regulate for the desired behaviour.
Marine mammals
58
The SQU1T fishery also interacts with fur seals and to a lesser extent sea lions. Table 2
shows recent levels of fur seal bycatch in the SQU1T fishery. MFish considers an increase
in fishing effort is likely to result in increased interactions between squid vessels and fur
seals and possibly sea lions. It is unclear what impact this increased interaction will have on
the fur seal and sea lion populations although it is possible that sea lion interactions could be
reduced if vessels deploy sea lion exclusion devices (SLEDs) in the SQU1T fishery as they
are required to do in the SQU6T fishery. There is also the possibility that if vessels chose to
fish longer in SQU1T, when squid abundance is good, this may reduce vessel interactions
with sea lions in SQU6T. The effect of fishing activity in SQU1T on the sea lion population
has not been such that active management has been required, as is done in SQU6T.
Table 2: Details of estimated fur seal captures from the SQU1T fishery by area, 2003-04 and 2004-05
2003-04
Area
Chatham Rise
Pukaki rise
Puysegur Snares/Stewart Shelf
Number of tows
584
330
251
4534
% observed
<1
5
0
21
No. of observed fur seals caught
0
0
10
Estimated no. fur seals caught
0
0
74
2004-05
Area
Puysegur Snares/Stewart Shelf
Number of tows
1515
67
292
5861
% observed
4
2
22
27
No. of observed fur seals caught
3
0
4
8
Estimated no. fur seals caught
80
19
42
Source: 'Incidental capture of marine mammals' S. J. Baird and M. H. Smith. ENV2005/02
Chatham Rise
Pukaki rise
59
The DWG has recently developed an operational procedure for mitigating marine mammal
bycatch which sets out the measures vessel operators should take to reduce marine mammal
interactions. This operating procedure was reviewed by a marine mammal technical expert
group in August 2007 and is currently being updated to reflect the views of this expert
group. All vessel operators intending to fish in SQU1T will be required by the DWG to
adhere to this procedure. MFish observers will also be auditing vessel performance against
this operating procedure throughout the 2007-08 SQU1T fishery.
60
It is too early to determine if this operating procedure will be effective and there are
justifiable concerns with relying on industry initiatives given that the previous marine
mammal code of practice has been less than successful. Industry performance will be
monitored closely by both MFish and the DWG in the future.
61
MFish considers that the additional risk to bycatch species in the squid fishery that may
arise from a TAC and TACC increase under Options 2 and 3 would be sufficiently
mitigated for the reasons described above. However, MFish accepts that there is widespread
204 of 397
support for retaining the status quo and believes this suggests you should approve Option 1
which will retain the TAC and TACC at 44, 740.88 tonnes.
Other matters for consideration
Future in-season increases
62
The driving force behind industry’s request for a permanent increase to the SQU1T TAC is
the concern amongst some industry participants with the current process for seeking an
increase. Some industry members consider the process is too long and often the decision is
received too late in the season to be of any real benefit.
63
MFish agrees that the current process for seeking an in-season increase could be improved
and proposes that a suitable mechanism for considering future increase is developed. MFish
proposes to work with DWG to improve this process as part of the development of the squid
fisheries plan. MFish will still be required to fully consult with all interested stakeholders on
any proposed increase.
Merger of SQU1T and SQU1J
64
Industry is also considering requesting a merger of the SQU1J and SQU1T TACs and
TACCs. The SQU1J fishery covers the same geographical area as SQU1T but the TACC
can only be harvested by fishing vessels engaged in jigging rather than trawling. The
SQU1J TACC is traditionally under caught, for example in 2005-06 only 12% of the TACC
was harvested. Industry, through the DWG is currently developing a proposal requesting
that you consider merging these two stocks. MFish will refrain from considering this issue
until a formal request is received from the DWG but considers this matter can be discussed
through the squid fisheries plan.
Monitoring
65
Both ECO and Forest & Bird request that observer coverage should be increased in the
SQU1T fishery to ensure there is appropriate mitigation of the effects of fishing non-fish
bycatch in the fishery. Decisions on the level of observer coverage in the squid fishery are
beyond the scope of this final advice paper. MFish does note that the squid fishery already
has some of the highest levels of observer coverage across the deepwater fleet. A large part
of this observer coverage is directed at the SQU6T fishery but many of the vessels that
operate in SQU6T also fish in SQU1T during the same trip.
66
MFish has also recently trialed an at-sea audit regime of the voluntary measures in place in
the hoki fishery. These voluntary measures include the VMPs to mitigate seabird bycatch
and the MMOP described above. These voluntary measures are also in place in the SQU1T
fishery and MFish intends to implement a similar audit regime for the coming squid season.
Allocation of the TAC
67
Traditionally there has been no allowance for customary Maori interests, recreational
fishery interests and other sources of fishing related mortality. There is no known
recreational or customary fishing for SQU1T, and no allowance has been provided to noncommercial extractive users.
205 of 397
68
However, the NZRFC submission requested that a non-commercial allocation be provided
for in the SQU1T fishery. NZRFC proposes that this allocation should be 1% of the TAC
because squid is increasingly becoming an important recreational fishery in particular as a
source of bait. However, recreational diary survey reports do not indicate that there is a
strong recreational squid fishery at the present time. Therefore, MFish does not recommend
any allowance be made at this time but will examine this issue as part of the fisheries plan.
69
The TAC must be apportioned between the relevant sectors and interests set out under the
provisions of s 21 of the Act. Section 21 prescribes that you should make allowances for
Maori customary non-commercial interests, recreational fishing interests, and for any other
sources of fishing-related mortality, before setting the TACC. In determining these
allowances, you should consider how the allowances will enable people to provide for their
social, economic and cultural wellbeing (as provided for in the purpose of the Act).
70
MFish proposes that you set allowances of 0 tonnes for recreational and Mäori customary
fishing under this option – consistent with the status quo.
71
MFish proposes that the current allowance for other sources of fishing-related mortality is
retained at 0% of the TACC. The volume of squid lost during trawling or from discarding of
damaged squid is unknown, but as the squid live for about one year, spawn and then die, the
level of fishing-related mortality from these other sources is not considered to be a major
factor in the sustainability of the stock.
Future Management
72
MFish is confident that the squid fisheries plan will be produced in time for the start of the
October 2008 fishing season. This fisheries plan will include all squid fisheries in New
Zealand and will build on recent initiatives to manage sea bird and marine mammal
interaction and will include key bycatch species. Many of the issues raised by industry in
their submissions will be addressed through the fisheries plan process. The draft squid
fisheries plan will be consulted on widely with stakeholders before being provided to you
for approval for the start of the 2008-09 season.
Deemed Values
73
MFish considered the deemed values for SQU1T as part of the wider deemed value review.
Given the fluctuations in abundance in the fishery and the ability for the TACC to be
increased in-season MFish does not consider a deemed value review is necessary at this
time. No submissions were received contradicting this view and MFish will recommend to
you in the Deemed Value FAP that the deemed values for SQU1T are left unchanged for the
coming season.
Compliance Implications
74
If you choose to retain the existing TAC and TACC MFish considers there will be no new
compliance concerns in the fishery. Existing compliance monitoring will continue to centre
on the correct deployment of bird mitigation measures and the correct reporting of bycatch
species.
206 of 397
Statutory Considerations
75
Section 8 – Purpose of the Act: MFish considers all three options available to you for
consideration provide for utilisation in the squid fishery while ensuring stock sustainability.
76
Section 9 – Environmental principles: The requirements under s. 9 of the Act have been
considered in preparing these management options. MFish does not have complete
information on the likelihood that Options 2 and Option 3 will impact on the long-term
viability of associated or dependent species, biological diversity of the aquatic environment
or on habitats of particular significance for fisheries management. However, should you
choose either Options 2 or Option 3, MFish considers that both voluntary and regulatory
measures are contributing to the management of this problem.
77
Section 10 – Information principles: The management options available to you have been
developed based on the best available information.
78
However, the likely impact of the TACC increase on seabird and marine mammal
populations is uncertain and therefore you should be cautious in making your decision on
whether to increase the TAC and TACC. You can choose to retain the status quo which is
the MFish preferred option but if you wish to increase the TAC and TACC then Option 2 is
the more cautious. You can also permit a TACC increase at any level and are not required to
choose either Option 2 or Option 3.
79
Section 5(a) and (b): Decision-makers are required to act in a manner consistent with New
Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing, including the Law of the Sea and the
Fish Stocks agreement as well as regional fishery management agreements. Decisionmakers must also act in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi
(Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. MFish considers that the proposed options are
consistent with both New Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing and the
provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
80
Section 11 – Sustainability measures: The management options described in this FAP
have been produced as per the requirements under this section of the Act.
81
Section 11 (1)(a) – Effects on the aquatic environment: The proposal to increase the
SQU1T TACC may affect the aquatic environment beyond current levels. The extent of this
impact has been considered in the IPP that accompanies this paper. MFish considers that
retaining the status quo will limit the affect the squid fishery has on the aquatic environment
beyond current levels.
82
Section 11 (1)(b): In making your decision you must take into account any existing controls
that apply to the stock. Apart from the existing TAC, TACC, and allowances, other
important existing fisheries management controls for SQU1T include a restriction on
vessels greater in size than 46m fishing up to 25 nautical miles of the coastline.
83
Section 11 (1)(c): when making your decision you must also take into account the natural
variability of the stock. As discussed in both the IPP and this paper the SQU1T fishery is
prone to annual fluctuations in biomass.
84
Section 11(2)(a) and (b): There are no provisions applicable to the coastal marine area
known to exist in any policy statement or plan under the Resource Management Act 1991,
or any management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1987, that are relevant to
207 of 397
the setting or varying of the TAC and TACC for SQU1T.
85
Section 11 (2)(c): Section 11(2) also requires you to have regard to any provisions of
sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. Although SQU1T quota
management area encompasses the waters of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, the distribution
of squid and the fishery for it do not intersect with the park boundaries. Therefore, there are
no relevant considerations under the Hauraki Marine Park Act 2000
86
Section 11(2A)(a) and (c): Before setting or varying any sustainability measure you must
take into account any conservation or fisheries service, or any decision not to require such
services. MFish does not consider that existing or proposed services materially affect the
proposed TAC options. No decision has been made not to require a service that would be
relevant to the SQU1T fishery.
87
Section 11A – Fisheries plans: There is currently no fisheries plan in place in the SQU1T
fishery.
88
Section 12 – Consultation: In preparing this FAP MFish has consulted with such persons
or organisations that have an interest in the stock or in the effects that fishing this stock
might have on the aquatic environment.
89
Section 14 – Alternative TAC permitted – Squid is managed under s. 14 as it is a quota
species listed on the Third Schedule of the Act. This means the TAC for the stock can be set
without reference to maximum sustainable yield (MSY). You must be satisfied that the
purpose of the Act will be better achieved by setting a TAC otherwise than in accordance
with s 13(2). Due to biological characteristics of squid, it is appropriate to set the TAC
without reference to MSY.
90
Section 15 – Protected species: Section 15 of the Act requires you to take such measures as
you consider necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effect of fishing-related mortality
on any protected species. A number of species of seabirds that interact with squid trawl
vessels are protected. If you consider the adverse effects of such a TAC increase are not
currently sufficiently mitigated you can request that appropriate regulations are
implemented under s. 15(4).
91
Section 20 and 21 - TACC: The allowances for Maori customary non-commercial
interests, recreational fishing interests, and for any other sources of fishing-related
mortality, before setting the TACC, are discussed in the section under “TAC allowances”.
However, s. 21 requires that any mätaitai reserve or closure/restriction under s. 186A to
facilitate customary fishing be taken into account. There are mätaitai reserves and s. 186A
measures in SQU1T, but none intersect with the SQU1T fishery. No area has been closed
or fishing method restricted (that affects the fishery within SQU1T) under the customary
fishing provisions of the Act. Section 21 also requires that any regulations to prohibit
fishing made under s. 311 be taken into account when setting allowances for recreational
interests. No restrictions under s. 311 have been placed on fishing in any area within
SQU1T.
92
Section 75 – Minister to set deemed value rates: The deemed value rates for SQU1T were
reviewed as part of the wider deemed value review process. MFish considers that the
current deemed value rates provide fishers with the necessary incentive to balance all their
catch with ACE as per s. 75 (2)(a) of the Act.
208 of 397
209 of 397
NORTH ISLAND EELS (SFE 20-23, LFE 20-23) - FINAL
ADVICE
Figure 1:
Quota management areas for shortfin (SFE) and longfin (LFE) eel stocks - North Island.
Executive Summary
Purpose
1
This paper provides final advice to you on proposals for shortfin eel (SFE – Auguilla
australis / A. reinhardtii) and longfin eel (LFE – A. dieffenbachii) stocks of the North Island
(see Figure 1). MFish recommends that the total allowable catches (TACs) are varied by
reducing the TACs in accordance with section 14(3) of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act).
2
Should you reduce any of these TACs, a decision is required on the allowances for
customary interests, recreational interests, and other sources of fishing related mortality, as
required by section 21 of the Act, in deciding on the total allowable commercial catch
(TACC) under section 20 of the Act.
3
In making the TAC decisions, MFish asks that you confirm the existing management
strategy for the North Island eel fishery.
210 of 397
Background
4
The North Island eel fishery was introduced into the quota management system (QMS) in
October 2004. TACs were set under section 14 of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act) on the
basis that, at the time, there were difficulties with estimating maximum sustainable yield.
The initial TACs were considered a reasonable starting point, although it was acknowledged
that further initiatives to improve the fishery would be required over the short to medium
term.
5
Section 14 of the Act provides an alternative means for setting a TAC where stocks meet the
criteria set out in section 14(8). For those stocks provided the Minister is satisfied that the
purpose of the Act would be better achieved the Minister may set the TAC other than in
accordance with the requirements of section 13 of the Act, ie with reference to maximum
sustainable yield. However, the TAC must be set in a way that ensures the stock is
sustainable. Under section 14(3) the TAC for the stock can be varied by increasing or
reducing the TAC.
6
To better serve the purpose of the Act, the previous Minister agreed to a management
strategy to improve the stock structure (ie, size composition) and abundance of eels over the
medium term (10 years), while bringing to a halt any decline in the fishery over the short
term. The Minister’s intention was to ensure that:
a)
The fishery is sustainably managed;
b)
The fishery’s availability to non-commercial fishers is improved; and
c)
The relationship with interdependent stocks is improved.
The current initiative
7
The current assessment from the Stock Assessment Plenary 2007 concludes there is a high
risk that current exploitation levels for longfin are unsustainable. For shortfin, the same
sustainability risk does not apply, but caution is required given the nature of eel biology.
8
Monitoring of shortfin and longfin commercial catch from across the North Island indicates
that the average size of shortfins and longfins are much reduced from former times.
Similarly, the proportion of longfin to shortfin in commercial catch landings has
significantly altered over time, such that longfin are now a much smaller proportion of the
commercial catch.
9
Preliminary results from longfin population modelling indicate that harvest rates for longfin
stocks are relatively high for a species with low productivity. More conservative levels of
harvest are required to ensure an adequate proportion of adults reach sexual maturity and
undertake their seaward migration at the end of their life (ie, spawning escapement).
Further, the number of elvers (juvenile eels) caught at monitoring sites suggests that
recruitment is relatively low (particularly longfin) in comparison to historic observations.
10
Commercial catches of shortfin and longfin have reduced following the introduction of
North Island eel stocks into the QMS. The catch reduction was quite marked in the 2004-05
fishing year as the industry underwent change. However, in the following fishing year, the
TACCs continued to be significantly under-caught for all but one shortfin stock (SFE 22).
These trends of reduced commercial catch have continued into the 2006-07 fishing year.
MFish considers that the on-going trend of reduced commercial catch in the North Island is
211 of 397
more likely to be linked to the depleted state of the fishery, rather than other factors that
might affect fishing success. However, should commercial catches increase to the level of
the existing TACCs, this is likely to be contrary to the sustainability and utilisation
outcomes sought for the fishery.
11
In addition, there have been significant concerns about utilisation of eel stocks from all
fishery interests. Fishery interests, particularly tangata whenua, are concerned about the
state of the shortfin and longfin stocks. They wish to see improvements in average size and
relative abundance of eels, so that their social, cultural and economic well-being is
enhanced.
Release of Initial Position Paper
12
An Initial Position Paper (IPP), released on 19 June 2007, proposed to reduce TACs for the
four shortfin and four longfin eel stocks of the North Island.
13
For all shortfin stocks, it was proposed to either reduce the TAC to a mid-point between the
existing TAC and recent catch levels (shortfin option 1), or to reduce the TAC to a level at
or near recent catch (shortfin option 2). For all longfin stocks, it is proposed to either
reduce the TAC to a level at or near recent catch (longfin option 1), or reduce the TAC to a
level about 20% less than recent catch (longfin option 2).
14
Further, within all TAC options proposed, MFish proposed that the existing allowances for
customary fishing and other sources of fishing related mortality be retained, and either:
15
a)
reduce the recreational allowance and the TACC (proportional approach); or
b)
maintain the existing recreational allowance and reduce the TACC only (nonproportional approach).
MFish indicated in the IPP that if you decide to reduce the TAC for any stock, its preference
is to retain the existing recreational allowance and reduce the TACC only.
Analysis
16
Commercial interests agreed that a conservative management approach is required for
longfin, but sought a more comprehensive review of eel fishery management.
Environmental, customary Maori, and recreational interests generally supported significant
reductions in TACs for all shortfin and longfin stocks.
17
MFish recommends that you reduce TACs for shortfin stocks to a level at or about recent
catch (shortfin option 2). Further, MFish recommends you reduce TACs for longfin stocks
to a level at or about 20% below recent catch (longfin option 2). MFish considers that these
actions will reduce the sustainability risks arising from the current North Island shortfin and
longfin TACs, and/or provide a better basis from which shortfin and longfin stocks can be
rebuilt.
18
MFish recommends that customary allowances, and the allowance for other sources of
fishing related mortality should be retained for all stocks.
212 of 397
19
Recreational allowances were proposed to be either reduced on a proportional basis
consistent with the percentage reduction for TACCs, or on a non-proportional basis. Noncommercial submitters generally supported a non-proportional approach, such that only the
TACC is to be reduced. Commercial interests took the view that all parties should
contribute to an improved fishery.
20
MFish prefers the non-proportional approach for each of the North Island eel stocks at this
time. This would be consistent with statutory obligations, particularly for Maori noncommercial interests within each of the stocks, and the desire to improve the availability of
eels to non-commercial interests more generally. In addition, the TACC for most eel stocks
are not fully utilised, and the impacts of reduced TACCs on the commercial fishery could be
more readily absorbed with less social, cultural, and economic effects.
21
Commercial interests are concerned that a more integrated approach to management of the
eel fishery is required on a national basis. However, MFish does not consider that
initiatives to improve significant parts of the biological stock (ie, the North Island) should
be deferred while any future integration across the biological stock is considered.
22
Similarly, the consideration of other complementary measures to sustain eel fisheries (other
than catch limits) will also require more time. Some progress to introduce complementary
measures was made in 2004. Development of a fisheries plan should refine the
management objectives for the fishery, and assist in identifying the right mix of tools to
apply to meet those objectives.
The Issue
23
Freshwater eels have relatively unique life history characteristics in comparison to other fish
species resident in New Zealand. They breed only once, migrating from the area where they
have spent much of their life to an oceanic spawning ground in the South Pacific (or the
Coral Sea for A. reinhardtii). Eel fisheries around the world are based on pre-spawning
fish. Worldwide, eel fisheries are in serious decline. New Zealand eel fisheries are possibly
in better health, but remain vulnerable.
24
There are concerns about sustainability and utilisation outcomes for the shortfin and longfin
eel fisheries in the North Island. Non-commercial fishers are concerned that eels are not as
abundant as they once were, and/or of a reasonable size. Commercial interests, who
developed their industry since the 1960s, are similarly concerned about the need to improve
the fishery following significant catches in recent decades.
25
North Island eel stocks were introduced into the QMS in 2004. There are four shortfin and
four longfin stocks. The North Island is the most significant eel fishery in the country, in
terms of overall catch quantity and the range of fishery interests. Use of the South Island
eel fishery has significantly reduced since its introduction into the QMS in 2000.
26
The management strategy for the North Island eel fishery agreed to by the former Minister
was to improve the stock structure (ie, size composition) and abundance of eels over the
medium term (10 years), while bringing to a halt any decline in the fishery over the short
term. The Minister’s intention was to ensure that:
a)
The fishery is sustainably managed;
b)
The fishery’s availability to non-commercial fishers is improved; and
213 of 397
c)
The relationship with interdependent stocks is improved.
27
TACs for North Island eel stocks were set in 2004 at a level lower than estimated catches
from all sectors for the twelve year period 1990-2002. The resulting TACs were considered
a reasonable starting point, but further reductions were considered probable. Following
QMS introduction, there was some industry rationalisation in the 2004-05 fishing year.
However, commercial catch has not yet reached the TACCs set in 2004 (except in SFE 22
in the 2005-06 fishing year). The level of non-commercial catch in recent years (since
2004) is unlikely to have changed as the characteristics of the fishery have not shown any
significant improvement, and feedback on the use of the fishery by non-commercial
interests has not significantly changed.
28
Other than the continued under-catch of the TACCs, a range of other information is now
available that indicates that sustainability and utilisation concerns need to be addressed.
MFish observes that:
a)
The Stock Assessment Plenary 2007 72 concluded there is a high risk that current
exploitation levels for longfin are unsustainable. For shortfin, the same risk does not
apply, but caution is required given the nature of eel biology and exploitation before
undertaking a spawning migration at the end of their life;
b)
Average size of shortfin and longfin eels sampled in commercial catch in recent
years is disproportionately represented by small individuals;
c)
The ratio of longfin to shortfin in commercial catches is significantly less than it was
in earlier decades;
d)
Preliminary longfin modelling studies indicate that longfin harvest rates may be too
high;
e)
Indices of elver abundance at upstream migration monitoring sites remains relatively
low in comparison to historical observations, and the small proportion of longfin
elvers observed is of concern; and
f)
Anecdotal observations largely favour the view that the fishery requires rebuilding
from its current depleted state, even though some stocks may not be facing
significant sustainability concerns in the short term.
29
There are a number of initiatives that MFish intends to take over the medium term to
improve both sustainability and utilisation of the fishery. These initiatives include the
development of fisheries plans, the implementation of other complementary measures to
ensure sustainability, a proposed amendment of the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary
Fishing) Regulations 1998, consideration to integrate management frameworks with the
South Island eel fishery, reporting refinements, and further research. However, the results
of these initiatives are unlikely to be seen for at least two years.
30
MFish does not consider that management action should be deferred until the outcome of
these other initiatives is complete. Action is required to remove the risk that existing catch
limits are too high and could allow further catch that is either unsustainable, or contrary to
the objective of rebuilding the fishery. In particular, it is considered that current
exploitation levels of longfin are unsustainable.
72
This document summarises the conclusions and recommendations of scientists and other fishery interests on the Eel
Fishery Assessment Working Group.
214 of 397
31
Reducing catch limits is an effective means to reduce sustainability concerns, but also to
improve utilisation opportunities over the medium term. Reducing catch limits, and
rebuilding the status of both shortfin and longfin stocks, would be in keeping with statutory
obligations, particularly to non-commercial Maori interests.
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
32
The IPP proposed a range of options for catch limits and allowances for each shortfin and
longfin stock in the North Island.
33
For quota management area 20 (Northland/Auckland), the options for proposed TACs,
allowances and TACCs are shown in Table 1.
Table 1:
Options for proposed TACs, allowances and TACCs (in tonnes) for SFE 20 and LFE 20. ‘Other’ means
the allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality.
Stock
Option
Allocation
TAC
Recreational
Allowance
Customary
Allowance
Other TACC
SFE 20
option 1
Proportional
179
23
30
4
122
Non-proportional
179
28
30
4
117
SFE 20
option 2
Proportional
148
18
30
4
96
Non-proportional
148
28
30
4
86
LFE 20
option 1
Proportional
45
5
10
2
28
Non-proportional
45
8
10
2
25
LFE 20
option 2
Proportional
39
4
10
2
23
Non-proportional
39
8
10
2
19
34
For quota management area 21 (Waikato/Poverty Bay), the options for proposed TACs,
allowances and TACCs are shown in Table 2.
Table 2:
Options for proposed TACs, allowances and TACCs (in tonnes) for SFE 21 and LFE 21. ‘Other’ means
the allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality.
Stock
Option
SFE 21
option 1
SFE 21
option 2
LFE 21
option 1
Allocation
TAC
Recreational
Allowance
Customary
Allowance
Other TACC
Proportional
195
18
24
4
149
Non-proportional
195
19
24
4
148
Proportional
181
16
24
4
137
Non-proportional
181
19
24
4
134
Proportional
75
8
16
2
49
Non-proportional
75
10
16
2
47
215 of 397
LFE 21
option 2
35
Proportional
60
6
16
2
36
Non-proportional
60
10
16
2
32
For quota management area 22 (Hawke Bay/Wellington), the options for proposed TACs,
allowances and TACCs are shown in Table 3.
Table 3:
Options for proposed TACs, allowances and TACCs (in tonnes) for SFE 22 and LFE 22. ‘Other’ means
the allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality.
Stock
Option
Allocation
TAC
Recreational
Allowance
Customary
Allowance
Other TACC
SFE 22
option 1
Proportional
128
10
14
2
102
Non-proportional
128
11
14
2
101
SFE 22
option 2
Proportional
121
10
14
2
95
Non-proportional
121
11
14
2
94
LFE 22
option 1
Proportional
41
4
6
2
29
Non-proportional
41
5
6
2
28
LFE 22
option 2
Proportional
34
3
6
2
23
Non-proportional
34
5
6
2
21
36
For quota management area 23 (Taranaki/Rangitikei), the options for proposed TACs,
allowances and TACCs are shown in Table 4.
Table 4:
Options for proposed TACs, allowances and TACCs (in tonnes) for SFE 23 and LFE 23. ‘Other’ means
the allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality.
Stock
Option
Allocation
TAC
Recreational
Allowance
Customary
Allowance
Other TACC
SFE 23
option 1
Proportional
43
4
6
2
31
Non-proportional
43
5
6
2
30
SFE 23
option 2
Proportional
36
4
6
2
24
Non-proportional
36
5
6
2
23
LFE 23
option 1
Proportional
41
5
14
2
20
Non-proportional
41
9
14
2
16
LFE 23
option 2
Proportional
34
4
14
2
14
Non-proportional
34
9
14
2
9
Final Proposal
37
For North Island eel stocks in general, MFish recommends that you:
a) Agree that TACs should be varied under section 14(3) of the Act;
216 of 397
b) Confirm the management strategy, as agreed to by the previous Minister, which is to
improve the stock structure (ie, size composition) and abundance by 2014, while
bringing to a halt any decline in the fishery over the short term;
c) Confirm that the intent of the management strategy is to ensure sustainability, improve
the availability of eels to non-commercial fishers, and improve the relationship with
interdependent stocks;
d) Agree to use a non-proportional approach to vary allowances (under section 21 of the
Act) and TACCs (under section 20 of the Act).
38
For each stock, MFish recommends you:
Northland / Auckland (QMA 20)
a) Reduce the SFE 20 TAC from 211 tonnes to 148 tonnes; and within this set:
i)
a customary allowance of 30 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 28 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of 4 tonnes;
iv)
a TACC of 86 tonnes.
b) Reduce the LFE 20 TAC from 67 tonnes to 39 tonnes; and within this set:
i)
a customary allowance of 10 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 8 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of 2 tonnes;
iv)
a TACC of 19 tonnes.
Waikato / Poverty Bay (QMA 21)
c) Reduce the SFE 21 TAC from 210 tonnes to 181 tonnes; and within this set:
i)
a customary allowance of 24 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 19 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of 4 tonnes;
iv)
a TACC of 134 tonnes.
d) Reduce the LFE 21 TAC from 92 tonnes to 60 tonnes; and within this set:
i)
a customary allowance of 16 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 10 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of 2 tonnes
iv)
a TACC of 32 tonnes.
Hawke Bay / Wellington (QMA 22)
e) Reduce the SFE 22 TAC from 135 tonnes to 121 tonnes; and within this set:
217 of 397
i)
a customary allowance of 14 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 11 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of 2 tonnes;
iv)
a TACC of 94 tonnes.
f) Reduce the LFE 22 TAC from 54 tonnes to 34 tonnes; and within this set:
i)
a customary allowance of 6 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 5 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of 2 tonnes
iv)
a TACC of 21 tonnes.
Taranaki / Rangitikei (QMA 23)
g) Reduce the SFE 23 TAC from 50 tonnes to 36 tonnes; and within this set:
i)
a customary allowance of 6 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 5 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of 2 tonnes;
iv)
a TACC of 23 tonnes.
h) Reduce the LFE 23 TAC from 66 tonnes to 34 tonnes; and within this set:
i)
a customary allowance of 14 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 9 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality of 2 tonnes;
iv)
a TACC of 9 tonnes.
Consultation
39
Your decision whether or not to vary the TAC for shortfin and longfin stocks of the North
Island is a decision under section 14(3) of the Act and therefore the consultation
requirements of section 12 apply.
40
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of
those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the
aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Maori, environmental, commercial,
and recreational interests. Further, provision was made for the input and participation of
tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in the stock or an interest in the effects of
fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned, having particular regard to
Kaitiakitanga.
41
MFish staff attended a number of hui during the time period available for consultation and
input and participation at which the proposals were canvassed and discussed. This included
presentations or discussions with four customary Forums where hapu and iwi
representatives from a broad geographical area of the North Island attended – Te Hiku o te
Ika (Far North), Te Waka a Maui (North Island customary freshwater interests), Nga Hapu o
218 of 397
te Uru (Waikato/King Country), and Te Kupenga Whiturauroa a Maui (Mahia to Turakirae
Head, Wellington).
Submissions Received
42
43
Submissions regarding the proposals were received from:
•
Aotearoa Fisheries Limited (AFL)
•
Bruce Dawson – commercial fisher
•
Eel Enhancement Company Ltd (EECo)
•
Environs Holdings Ltd – the subsidiary of Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust (Environs)
•
Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc. (ECO)
•
Huakina Development Trust, Pukekohe
•
Hokianga Accord – representing non-commercial fishers
•
Mootakotako Marae, Aotea Harbour
•
New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA)
•
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC)
•
Nga Hapu o Te Uru o Tainui (NHOTU)
•
Te Kupenga Whiturauroa a Maui Regional Kaitaiki Fisheries Forum (Te Kupenga),
Masterton
•
The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd (SeaFIC)
•
Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd (TOKM) – late submission, not analysed
•
Te Kotahitanga o Te Arawa Waka Fisheries Trust Board (TKOTAW)
•
Te Papaorotu Marae, Whatawhata
•
Te Runanga o Te Rarawa
•
Waahi Whaanui Trust (WWT), Huntly
•
Waikato Raupatu Trustee Company Ltd (Waikato Raupatu)
•
Wellington Conservation Board (WCB).
A summary of submissions is attached to this paper.
219 of 397
MFish Discussion
Consultation, and input and participation
44
In their submissions, two parties sought engagement with MFish before decisions on
sustainability measures on North Island eel stocks are made. Both these submitters received
the IPP at the start of the consultation period. Neither submitter contacted the relevant staff
within MFish to discuss the proposals during the time period available for this purpose.
Use and values of eel fishery
45
Tangata whenua generally identified their close association with eels, as taonga, as part of
their customs, and as a source of sustenance. Submitters confirm the non-commercial use of
eels is of high importance, and contributes significantly to social, cultural and economic
well-being. Recreational fishing interests submitted that eel fishing contributes to the wellbeing of the non-commercial sector, particularly in inland areas. These interests highlight
the need to improve availability and access to reasonably sized eels, such that these values,
and therefore well-being, can be enhanced.
46
Some commercial interests question the way in which non-commercial uses and values were
described in the IPP. They believe emphasis should simply be on advising the Minister that
there is no information on non-commercial catch, and the question remains as to whether
the current non-commercial allowances and bag limits are adequate to meet their needs.
Further, SeaFIC offers an interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘subsistence’ to a
relatively narrow set of social circumstances and dependency. SeaFIC queries the relative
weight of the word when applied to allocation decisions. Further, it questions whether
fisheries legislation should be used to address broader socio-economic conditions in society.
47
MFish acknowledged in the IPP that quantitative information on non-commercial use of the
eel fishery was lacking. However, the description of the uses and values associated with
this resource are informative and fair to the sectors involved. Tangata whenua and other
non-commercial interests wish to see their use and values recognised (as does the
commercial sector), as it contributes to their well-being. Consideration of the manner in
which the resource is used by a range of sectors provides some context for the management
decisions required, and the social, cultural and economic well-being that may be affected.
48
MFish has not suggested in the IPP that fisheries legislation should be used to alleviate
broader socio-economic conditions in society. Nevertheless, there is discretion available
within the Act for the Minister to determine what level allowances and TACCs should be
set at. For example, the Minister might consider that the purpose of the Act could be better
achieved where allowances for non-commercial fishing are either maintained or increased.
The consequences of such a course of action, rather than the intent, might be that other
prevailing social conditions are addressed (eg, poverty). Similarly, it could be argued that
such socio-economic conditions could be addressed by providing economic opportunities,
through economic well-being considerations of the Act.
49
For the purposes of this section of the final advice, MFish is merely acknowledging that
different sectors use the resource in different ways, and have various motives for that use,
and therefore different well-being outcomes. The extent of social, cultural and economic
well-being derived from the resource will vary depending on the allowances made for noncommercial fishing interests and the TACC set for each stock.
220 of 397
Views on management strategy
50
When introducing North Island eel stocks into the QMS, the previous Minister agreed to an
overall management strategy. The management strategy is to improve the stock structure
(ie, size composition) and abundance of eels over the medium term (10 years from 2004),
while bringing to a halt any decline in the fishery over the short term. The intention is to
ensure that:
a)
The fishery is sustainably managed;
b)
The fishery’s availability to non-commercial fishers is improved; and
c)
The relationship within independent stocks is improved.
51
There is general consensus amongst customary, recreational, and environmental interests
that the eel fishery requires additional management action to restore, rebuild, and improve
the status of the fishery. Therefore, these interests support a conservative management
strategy. Commercial interests have mixed views – EECo and AFL both support a
conservative management strategy, or specifically the current management strategy, while
SeaFIC believes a rethink of the management approach is required.
52
Commercial interests consider that the approach to management should be assessed on a
national basis, consistent with the biological distribution of the species. Adjusting the
management settings of the eel fishery has been an iterative process over the past decade.
The introduction of the eel fishery into the QMS was undertaken in three phases (South
Island – 2000, Chatham Island – 2003, and North Island – 2004). Similarly, the framework
for authorising customary use in the freshwater environment differs between the South
Island and the rest of the country. The customary framework for the North and Chatham
Islands is presently being reviewed. A letter proposing a regulatory amendment was
dispatched to fishery interests on 29 August 2007. Other sustainability measures, such as
the maximum size limit for the commercial sector, have only recently been consistently
applied across the country.
53
There are a variety of historical reasons for these differences, and the time period for their
gradual introduction. Nevertheless, these earlier initiatives provided a platform for a
degree of change from the old ways of management to the new. However, as noted in the
IPP, some of these earlier initiatives require review or refinement. These are resource
intensive exercises in themselves.
54
MFish has progressively sought to remove unnecessary inconsistencies in eel management,
and fine-tune existing management settings as opportunities arise. As noted in the IPP, the
current initiative to review North Island catch limits is part of a longer term objective to
significantly improve the status of eels and reduce sustainability risks to the fishery, while
improving the social, cultural and economic well-being of fishery interests.
55
Some commercial interests consider that the current management strategy is not
satisfactorily defined, such that value to all stakeholders is maximised. MFish appreciates
the basis for this view, as the current management strategy is set at a high level, in
recognition that many interests will have more specific objectives they would like to see
addressed.
56
The current management strategy aims to capture many of the common aspirations of a
broad range of fishery interests, and is not necessarily that different from what would be
221 of 397
expected if the stocks were managed under section 13 of the Act. Further specification of
the management objectives and the tools to achieve these objectives will need to be
developed over the next few years, and in conjunction with fishery interests from across the
spectrum.
57
Commercial interests point to a need to consider a range of management measures to
address the variety of fisheries management objectives for the fishery at this time. MFish
has previously noted that other complementary fisheries management tools should be
considered to meet fisheries management objectives for the eel fishery. MFish took the
initiative to introduce some of these in 2004-05 (eg, closed commercial areas for purpose of
protecting eel populations prior to spawning) and has signalled that more work on such
measures is likely to occur in the near future.
58
However, the present review of catch limits for North Island eel stocks is not in conflict
with the use of other complementary tools to meet the current management strategy. This
proposal serves to reduce sustainability risks and help rebuild eel stocks. Should North
Island catch limits be reduced, further development of other initiatives can be progressed
with some confidence that the fishery should not deteriorate from its current state.
59
There is sufficient consensus on the current management strategy for it to be applied to the
current review of catch limits and allowances. MFish also highlighted in the IPP that
fisheries management objectives for the fishery could be better articulated in a fisheries
plan. Development of a fisheries plan could take some years depending on its relative
priority, and the ability of relevant fishery interests to engage in the process.
60
In the interim, MFish concludes the current management strategy for North Island eel
fisheries should be retained as it sets a general direction that is supported by the majority of
fishery interests. There is still scope for a range of initiatives to be taken in the intervening
years prior to the development of a fisheries plan, where they are of sufficient priority.
61
Lastly, MFish disagrees with the claim that it has done very little towards maximising value
of the eel resource, and enhancement of the commercial sector. For example, the
introduction of eel stocks into the QMS has provided a much better basis on which
commercial operations can be conducted, and adjusting sustainability measures aims to
improve the fishery for the future, for all interests.
Rationale for Management Options
Introduction
62
As noted in the IPP, MFish is not confident that the management strategy outcomes for
North Island eel stocks will be achieved by 2014 at current TAC levels. In terms of
sustainability outcomes, the MFish Stock Assessment Plenary 2007 concludes there is a
high risk that the current exploitation levels for longfin are unsustainable. For shortfin, the
Plenary advises that the same risk does not apply, although caution is required given the
nature of eel biology and exploitation before spawning escapement. Accordingly, the
options for TAC adjustments reflect the higher level of concern for longfin in comparison to
shortfin. The rationale for management action also relates to better achievement of
utilisation outcomes – in general terms, the rebuild of all stocks.
222 of 397
Submitter’s response to the general approach
63
Submissions from recreational, customary and environmental interests all support the
rationale for a reduction in catch limits. Some of these interests support a more significant
reduction than the TAC options proposed for either shortfin or longfin stocks. These
interests do not consider that the proposed TAC reductions are sufficient to enable a rebuild
in either the shortfin or longfin stocks.
64
Submissions from commercial submitters generally query the basis for the proposed
reductions, and the use of catch limits in comparison to other management measures. Some
commercial submitters argue that it is too soon to determine whether the initial catch limits
were set too high, and there is a lack of adequate information on which to justify a strong
case for a sustainability issue. EECo provides some alternative suggestions for reduced
longfin catch limits. These are expressed as the resulting TACCs, rather than TACs.
Commercial submitters consider that shortfin catch limits do not need to be changed at this
time, as a sustainability risk is not evident.
Assessment of submitter’s response to general approach
Reflection on rationale for change to catch limits
65
MFish is of the view that sustainability and utilisation concerns for both shortfin and longfin
are genuine and require attention. Concerns extend from the need to halt any further decline
in eel stocks, but also to rebuild the fishery from a depleted state. Similarly, the
observations of a broad range of interests, from a number of geographical areas, support the
need to rebuild the fishery.
66
An adjustment in catch limits is a relatively simple and effective way to achieve reduced
sustainability risk and allow more assurance that the fishery will rebuild to meet the
aspirations of fishery interests. A reasonable reduction in catch limits should allow eels to:
a)
become more abundant;
b)
grow to a larger average size;
c)
contribute more to food web dynamics of freshwater ecosystems;
d)
leave freshwater to spawn as sexually mature adults in greater numbers; and
e)
depending on whether there is a relationship between spawning biomass and the
number of recruits, increase the number of juvenile eels that return to New Zealand
estuaries and rivers.
67
Improvements at the level of the stock may take several years to eventuate, and become
apparent, as more recent management actions to constrain catch, and improve the fishery’s
performance more generally, come to pass. For longfin stocks, any improvements at the
level of the stock could take a much longer time period to eventuate. Should these broad
improvements occur, positive outcomes are likely to extend to all interdependent stocks, and
the availability of eels to non-commercial fishers, in terms of either suitably sized eel, or
numbers, or both. These benefits similarly apply to commercial fishers who may fish more
efficiently and selectively in an improved fishery.
68
In essence, appropriately set catch limits can lower exploitation to sustainable levels. The
use of other complementary measures may alter the degree to which catch limits are
223 of 397
adjusted in future, as well as the effectiveness of any varied catch limit from October 2007.
However, fisheries management objectives for the eel fishery have yet to be refined, or
reconciled in some instances. Given the significance of that step, and the assessment
required thereafter to evaluate other complementary tools, the use of the catch limit tool to
address generic sustainability and utilisation concerns in each stock is desirably simple at
this time.
Shortfin stocks
69
Proposals to reduce TACs for shortfin stocks will seek to limit any potential increase in
catch. At present, there is potential for commercial catch to increase as the TACC has been
under-caught in 3 of the 4 stocks (ie, except SFE 22 in the 2005-06 fishing year). An
increase in principally commercial catch is unlikely to be consistent with a desire to rebuild
shortfin stocks. The two options for shortfin TACs seek to reduce this risk by varying
degrees. You may elect to choose either option when considering a variation to the TAC for
any of the shortfin stocks.
70
Varying the TAC in accordance with shortfin option 1 (at a mid-point between the existing
TAC and recent catch) would provide for some further catch, and may, on further
monitoring, be consistent with attempts to rebuild the fishery. Use of this option would
result in less impact on fishers in the short term, particularly where there is some
‘headroom’ between existing catch and TACCs or allowances. However, there may be less
opportunity for improvement in the rebuilding of shortfin stocks over the medium term
using this option. The probability of an improvement in a stock’s status using this approach
is unknown.
71
Varying the TAC using shortfin option 2 (at or about recent catch) will provide a better
opportunity for improvements in the fishery, and would be a more cautious approach.
Reducing TACs using shortfin option 2 at this time should increase the probability that the
rebuild of the fishery is achieved sooner rather than later. This would allow more time to
assess whether the level of recent use is leading to positive changes in the fishery. Varying
the TAC for a shortfin stock in accordance with shortfin option 2 would recognise the view
that retaining a higher catch limit is less likely to improve the status of the stock over the
short to medium term. It would also signify a desire to rebuild the stock in question with
greater certainty.
72
The social, cultural and economic impacts of a reduction in TACs for shortfin stocks may be
less now than if these reductions are required in a few years, should there be an increase in
the use of the shortfin resource in the intervening time. The relative impact in the short to
medium term will be dependent on the level of recent use by the different sectors, and the
approach to the varying of allowances in revising TACCs. In general, the effects of
applying shortfin option 2 will be greater than shortfin option 1, and you will need to
consider whether the benefits of reduction at a greater level outweigh the likely medium
term costs of reduced catch.
Longfin stocks
73
The vast majority of submitters accept the rationale that sustainability measures for longfin
stocks need to be more conservative than shortfin stocks. Most submitters agree that a
significant reduction in TACs will assist in reducing the risk of sustainability concerns,
although some industry submitters wish to investigate other options over the next few years.
224 of 397
MFish notes that longfin stocks are endemic to New Zealand, and there is no other source of
recruitment to the fishery.
74
On the basis that current levels of exploitation are considered to be unsustainable, it is
appropriate to at least reduce TACs to levels of recent catch (longfin option 1) for the short
term. Choosing this option may be feasible if you elected to review catch limits or other
complementary measures within the next couple of years.
75
However, the weight of scientific information summarised in the IPP, and as discussed in
more depth at Eel Fishery Assessment Working Group meetings, supports a more cautious
approach (longfin option 2) for implementation at the first reasonable opportunity. This
sense of immediacy is consistent with the intentions of the management strategy, and the
timeline for its achievement.
76
MFish considers that the social, cultural and economic impacts of acting to reduce TACs
now will be less than the implementation of more significant sustainability measures if
existing trends in the fishery were left unchecked. The benefits of reducing TACs in
accordance with longfin option 2 outweigh the medium term costs of reduced catching
opportunities.
Other factors to consider when reflecting on proposed rationale
77
Environmental degradation is an issue that affects eel populations. This factor was
particularly important in the past given the transformation of land and development of
hydro-electric power generation, but also incrementally in recent years (eg, management of
riparian margins, pollution, culverts, weirs and irrigation schemes). At the level of
considering the TAC for a stock, most of these impacts are likely to have had a negative
effect. Further, eel species composition, relative abundance, and population biomass have
significantly altered since commercial fishing commenced. In the longer term, it would be
desirable to better link the effects of habitat modifications on aquatic life, and fishing
interests using that aquatic life.
78
Some commercial submitters suggest the MFish final advice of June 2004 provides that any
necessary refinements to management settings in future years are dependent on a review of
commercial and non-commercial catch information and new scientific information.
Commercial submitters suggest that no new scientific information or non-commercial catch
information is available for consideration and accordingly the current review is premature.
MFish does not agree with this view.
79
MFish notes that it has summarised the key findings of recent research undertaken on the
eel fishery in the IPP. In addition, the commercial submitters concerned have been involved
in Eel Fishery Assessment Working Groups where the detail of this research has been
reviewed. The best information available suggests that sustainability and utilisation
concerns are apparent. It is not essential for MFish to be in possession of all possible
information before taking management action.
80
In setting out the approaches for the calculation of proposed TACs in this review, reference
is made to recent catches made since 2004-05. In the absence of quantitative information at
the level of the stock, MFish assumed that the level of non-commercial catch is unlikely to
have changed during that period. Furthermore, it assumed that the full allowance was being
225 of 397
caught for the purpose of calculating revised TACs. Average catch figures for the
commercial fishery were drawn from the 2004-05 and 2005-06 fishing year.
81
To ensure that the average commercial catch from 2004-05 and 2005-06 fishing years are
representative of recent catch, the commercial catch figures for the incomplete 2006-07
fishing year have been updated for the ten month period through to July 2007. A revised
‘Table 6’ from the IPP is presented below as Table 5 for your information.
82
Longfin catch in the current fishing year is unlikely to exceed the average commercial catch
in the preceding years. The shortfin catch in SFE 20 and SFE 23 is likely to exceed the
average from the preceding years, but not significantly. In contrast, the SFE 21 commercial
catch in the current fishing year is unlikely to reach the average for the preceding years.
Overall, the TAC options for shortfin or longfin stocks proposed in the IPP are considered
to be representative of recent catch through to the current fishing year.
Table 5:
Updated Table 6 from Initial Position Paper on commercial catch (in tonnes) of North Island shortfin and
longfin eel stocks since the 2004-05 fishing year. Sourced from a Monthly Harvest Return data extract of
22 August 2007. Percentage of TACC remaining uncaught is shown in brackets.
Stock
TACC
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07 (to 30 July)
SFE 20
149
78.41 (47.4)
93.25 (37.4)
96.56 (35.2)
LFE 20
47
27.42 (41.7)
23.74 (49.5)
22.35 (52.5)
SFE 21
163
122.95 (24.6)
144.33 (11.5)
92.36 (43.3)
LFE 21
64
53.52 (16.4)
41.18 (35.7)
25.47 (60.2)
SFE 22
108
80.53 (25.4)
106.90 (1.02)
77.29 (28.4)
LFE 22
41
23.86 (41.8)
31.64 (22.8)
24.82 (39.5)
SFE 23
37
14.95 (59.6)
31.46 (15.0)
29.75 (19.6)
LFE 23
41
24.52 (40.2)
24.19 (41.0)
13.80 (66.3)
Calls for even lower catch limits
83
At this time MFish does not consider that more significant adjustments in catch limits for
North Island eel stocks should be made beyond the options provided in the IPP. MFish
appreciates that some submitters and other fishery interests have not enjoyed satisfactory
access to the eel fishery for several years, and the state of the resource is of particular
concern across a wide range of areas.
84
However, recent changes to management settings (eg, introduction of catch limits,
maximum size limit), the current review, and future initiatives are heading in the right
direction. MFish will continue to monitor shortfin and longfin stocks in the North Island
through research initiatives. Periodic reviews of management settings can be undertaken if
the management strategy is not likely to be adequately met in the medium term.
226 of 397
Calls for the status quo, or smaller reductions in catch limit
85
MFish does not support an approach where the catch limit settings for either shortfin or
longfin are left at their present level while further discussions take place amongst fishery
interests and MFish. The present TACs allow for further catch to be taken from the fishery,
in an environment where the information suggests more restraint is at least desirable, if not
necessary.
86
The TAC options proposed in this review do not have significant impacts on the use of most
of the various stocks, yet serve to contribute to an improvement in fishery management
outcomes for all fishery interests over the medium term. Some industry submitters have
offered alterative suggestions for smaller reductions in catch limits for longfin stocks,
although the rationale for the alternative catch limits is not necessarily clear.
87
MFish has reached its current position having reviewed the current information available for
the fishery, together with knowledge of the fishery gathered from fishery interests over
several decades. This is the best available information. MFish acknowledges that the level
of stock assessment information available at the moment is not sufficient to be more
determinative in its management advice on eel stocks. MFish is not able to definitively
advise you on the relative probability of rebuild under the different options for TACs.
Collection of that information is difficult and time consuming, but efforts continue. This
situation only re-enforces the need for the exercise of caution when decisions on
sustainability and/or utilisation are required to be made.
88
The sources of research information used to reach the MFish view have been canvassed
through the MFish Fishery Assessment Working Group process. Several industry
representatives consistently attend that Working Group and have actively participated in
discussions about interpretation of new research findings. Similarly, a range of fishery
interests participate in the Eel Research Planning Group process, and information gaps are
discussed. MFish welcomes the participation of a wider range of fishery interests in order
that their suggested priorities for research activity are discussed.
89
MFish has commissioned a research report focusing on methods to estimate customary
catch that should assist in further information collection, and research planning in future
years. The research provider was not able to provide a progress report on that project at the
August 2007 Research Planning Group meeting.
90
MFish reiterates that size grade information from commercial catch landings indicates the
size composition of the (commercial) fishery for both shortfin and longfin could be
significantly improved. This would have positive implications for utilisation and
sustainability outcomes for all stocks. There has not been a clear trend suggesting the
average size of shortfin or longfin taken commercially has improved in recent years, even
though the existing TACCs have yet to be caught. Similarly, there has been no obvious
significant change in the composition of recent commercial catch in terms of the proportion
(by weight) of longfin to shortfin, when compared to historical data.
91
MFish accepts that it may take time for improvements in terms of average size and species
composition to manifest themselves in wild eel populations, particularly in southern
populations with slower growth rates. However, positive changes have not been generally
evident in more northern locations where growth rates are better and commercial catches,
while lower than observed in the 1990s, have not reached catch limits put in place.
227 of 397
Furthermore, any improvements might be further delayed or not happen at all if existing
TACs were fully utilised. MFish acknowledges some observations from commercial fishers
that improvements in average size have occurred at a local scale since 2004.
92
MFish does not accept some industry views that the commercial catch may not be
representative of the wild fishery due to a range of factors. Factors such as drought
conditions, relative experience of a commercial fisher, and export conditions etc. have been
taken into account when considering the commercial catch information. Some of these
features are not unique to a particular year, such that it would affect the interpretation of
longer term trends.
93
In addition, anecdotal observations from non-commercial fishing interests generally suggest
that the wild fishery is in an unsatisfactory condition. This is consistent with research
findings. This view is shared by some experienced commercial fishers actively involved in
the fishing of the resource, although other industry representatives may disagree.
Assessment of Management Options
Total Allowable Catch
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
Legislative provisions
94
Before setting any sustainability measure, such as a TAC, relevant to the Hauraki Gulf you
are required by section 11(2)(c) of the Act to harve particular regard to sections 7 and 8 of
the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act in so far as the decision relates to the Hauraki Gulf. The
four fishstocks SFE 20, LFE 20, SFE 21 and LFE 21 are relevant to the Hauraki Gulf.
95
The Hauraki Gulf is defined in the abovementioned Act to include all coastal waters and
offshore island from just south of Mangawhai, offshore to the Moho Hinau Islands, and
south to Homunga Point (north of Waihi Beach). That Act’s objectives are to protect and
maintain the natural resources of the Hauraki Gulf as a matter of national importance.
Importantly for eels, sections 7 and 8 also apply to catchments flowing into the Hauraki
Gulf.
96
Section 7 recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf including its capacity to
provide for the relationship of tangata whenua and the social, economic, recreational, and
cultural well being of people and communities.
97
Section 8 sets out the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, which includes the
maintenance of the Hauraki Gulf for social and economic wellbeing and its contribution to
the recreation and enjoyment of the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New
Zealand. The maintenance and enhancement of the physical resources of the Gulf, which
includes shortfin and longfin stocks, is also an objective.
Analysis
98
Shortfin and longfin eels are found throughout the waters of the catchments leading into the
Hauraki Gulf, and in some areas form a component of the estuarine and marine food web.
Shortfins in particular are known to be commercially fished mainly in the Firth of Thames
228 of 397
at the river mouths and shallow coastal margins, as well as embayments of the Waitemata
Harbour.
99
Both shortfin and longfin eels are found in the many estuarine waters that make up the
fractured eastern coastline, and are well known to occur in streams and rivers of urban
areas, as well as more natural settings of more forested areas (eg, Hunua ranges, or
Coromandel Peninsula). The fishery on the Coromandel Peninsula supported a commercial
fishery of about 10 tonnes per annum during the 2003-04 and 2004-05 fishing years (both
species combined).
100
The main river systems leading into the Firth of Thames drain many of the remaining
wetland areas of the Hauraki Plains, and these areas are known to be commercially fished
for shortfin in particular. Data from the 2003-04 and 2004-05 fishing years suggest that the
most important area for commercial harvest of principally shortfin is the Piako River
catchment and adjacent streams/wetlands. Catch of eels in this area was approximately 25
tonnes per annum, with ~80% of the catch being shortfin. The Waihou River, its tributaries,
and adjacent wetlands are well used by commercial eel fishers. Commercial catch, of
mainly shortfin, is approximately 15 tonnes per annum.
101
The commercial fishery for eels in the catchments of the Hauraki Gulf is relatively
important on a local scale, particularly in the rivers and wetlands of the Hauraki Plains.
However, its contribution to the eel industry at a national scale is of less significance. The
commercial fishery in the Waikato and Northland is of more significance on a national
basis.
102
Some non-commercial fishing activity occurs on the Hauraki Plains. Reports from whänau
involved with the customary fishery note that they now have to travel a greater distance to
reach suitable fishing areas. This may involve gaining access to waters through other
people’s land. Tangata whenua from this area observe their social and cultural aspirations
are not being adequately met. They believe eel populations are depleted, and catch rates are
relatively low in comparison to catches in the 1960s.
103
MFish considers that the proposals within this final advice will further contribute to the
social, cultural and economic well-being of people having an interest in shortfin and longfin
populations of Hauraki Gulf waters. There is a need to maintain the status of the resource,
and to improve it, in order that the values encompassed in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park
Act are enhanced for the longer term. The value that non-commercial interests have
previously enjoyed in the Gulf is not adequately being met. Similarly, commercial fishers
could improve their economic well-being where sustainability and utilisation outcomes are
improved within the area.
General observations on varying the TACs
104
MFish is of the view that it is still appropriate to manage the stocks under section 14 for the
short to medium term. To better serve the purpose of the Act under section 14 the previous
Minister agreed to a management strategy to guide the setting of TACs.
105
Other than some views from the fishing industry, all fishery interests support a reduction to
TACs for shortfin and longfin stocks in the North Island. Of those non-commercial
submitters to offer a view on the MFish options for TACs, none of them indicated that
shortfin option 1 or longfin option 1 represented sufficient reductions.
229 of 397
106
Industry submitters generally wish to engage in a broader review of management measures
at a range of levels, and suggest that a review of catch limits for North Island eel stocks is
not urgent, particularly for shortfins. MFish considers there is value in a more
comprehensive review, but this will require significant time and resources to complete.
MFish does not consider it appropriate to retain the current management settings while
future discussions on the management outcomes take place over the next few years. Active
steps are required to ensure that sustainability risks are reduced and, from an utilisation
perspective, the fishery rebuilt within a reasonable timeframe.
107
Some commercial submitters suggest that MFish needs to rethink its approach to
management of the eel fishery. MFish is well aware of the desirability to address or further
refine the management framework for eel fisheries on a national basis. MFish is taking
steps to work with fishery interests to address these as required, and as other priorities
allow.
108
In the meantime, the present review seeks to reduce sustainability risks and improve
utilisation opportunities in a rebuilt fishery, while initiatives are progressed over the
medium term. TAC reduction proposals are unlikely to be in conflict with future initiatives
that may be developed to complement catch limit controls. Effecting a TAC change is a
relatively straight forward step to take from an administrative perspective. Should a
reduction in TACs result from this review, MFish believes the effect of the change will be
beneficial for the fishery and the aquatic environment in the medium term. That outcome is
not inconsistent with commercial aspirations in terms of well-being over that time period.
Northland / Auckland (QMA 20)
SFE 20
109
The shortfin fishery in the upper North Island is characterised by a significant portion of
relatively small eels. A significant improvement in the size structure of the shortfin
population has not been broadly apparent in commercial landings, and non-commercial
interests in the area have concerns for the size and quantity of eels found in the stock. The
warmer water temperatures in the area are likely to encourage faster growth, yet
improvements over recent years are not yet obvious across the stock.
110
EECo indicates that some reduction of (commercial) catch could be made if reductions need
to be made now, but the rationale for the suggested reduction is not explained – it could
simply be that there is more ‘headroom’ for a reduction to be made. The reduction
proposed by EECo equates to 15% of the existing TACC. In the context of how that kind of
reduction might be derived, a TAC would need to be varied in accordance with an approach
similar to shortfin option 1. In contrast, tangata whenua from the area believe that more
significant reductions to the TAC are required, at or beyond the approach suggested by
shortfin option 2.
111
Reducing the TAC using shortfin option 1 may not necessarily contribute to a significant
rebuild of the stock. This would result in a reduction of the TAC from 211 tonnes to 179
tonnes. The benefits of this reduced TAC may be more modest than a TAC varied to a
lower level. However, any such benefits that arise would be at relatively little cost to the
existing use of the resource.
230 of 397
112
MFish believes that shortfin option 2 is more appropriate. A rebuild in the stock would be
more likely to be evident under this approach. Accordingly, the TAC would be reduced
from its existing level of 211 tonnes to 148 tonnes.
LFE 20
113
The longfin fishery of the upper North Island has been heavily fished, and fishery interests
generally recognise that there are concerns about the status of longfin throughout the
country, as well as at a stock level. The size composition of the LFE 20 stock is dominated
by relatively small sized longfins, and there is a need to improve the size structure within
the stock. Preliminary harvest estimates for the LFE 20 stock suggest that exploitation
levels have been too high in the past, and a more conservative approach is required.
114
Reducing the TAC using longfin option 1 (to a level at or about recent catch) is unlikely to
ensure sustainability, or make significant gains on the rebuild of the stock. EECo supports a
reduction in (commercial) catch taken from the stock in recognition of the concerns for
longfin generally. EECo envisages a TACC of 33 tonnes, representing a 30% reduction
from the existing TACC of 47 tonnes. However, recent commercial use of the stock has not
reached this level, nor is it likely to in the current fishing year.
115
In the context of the TAC, a significant reduction in longfin catch is warranted, consistent
with the assessment of longfin status generally, but also bearing in mind that the LFE 20
stock requires rebuilding. MFish does not believe that adopting longfin option 1 for the
varying of the TAC is particularly viable in terms of ensuring sustainability. This would
reduce the existing TAC from 67 tonnes to 45 tonnes. More active steps are required to
arrest sustainability risks for longfin stocks. MFish recommends that the TAC is varied in
accordance with longfin option 2, such that it is reduced from 67 tonnes to 39 tonnes.
Waikato / Poverty Bay (QMA 21)
SFE 21
116
The SFE 21 stock has been well utilised by fishery interests over a long time period. There
has been extensive commercial use of the fishery in recent decades. The stock is considered
heavily fished, although there are some areas where fishing has been relatively light. Some
recent improvements in average size have been observed on a local scale in some areas.
However, commercial landings provide evidence that the population structures have been
significantly affected in comparison to historic catches in the earlier part of the commercial
fishery. Non-commercial interests indicate that their harvesting expectations are not being
met, when compared to catches of earlier times.
117
EECo indicate that some reduction in (commercial) catch is warranted (14 tonnes), equating
to about 9% of the TACC. In the context of the TAC proposals, and the need to achieve a
rebuild of the stock, this is unlikely to be of much value. This stock requires rebuilding.
Reducing the TAC to a level some way above existing catch still provides for more catch to
be taken.
118
At this stage, it is uncertain whether the downward trend in the SFE 21 commercial catch
this fishing year represents an actual further downward trend in the wild fishery. Some
commercial fishers observe that the average size in some local areas is improving, while
others indicate a contrary view for other areas of the stock. Overall, some caution seems
231 of 397
appropriate. Adopting a TAC using shortfin option 1 may not be cautious enough. This
would reduce the TAC from 210 tonnes to 195 tonnes.
119
MFish considers that varying the TAC using shortfin option 2 (at or about recent catch)
would be desirable, and would provide more certainty that sustainability risks are reduced,
and allow the stock to rebuild with more certainty. The TAC would be reduced from 210
tonnes to 181 tonnes under this approach. A rebuild in this stock could generate improved
catching success, and reduce costs in undertaking fishing operations. The attainment of
these benefits for this stock in particular would outweigh short term costs associated with
reduced catch.
LFE 21
120
The longfin fishery in the upper North Island is considered heavily fished. The proportion
of longfins in the commercial fishery (compared to shortfin) has significantly reduced. The
Waikato, King Country and Hauraki areas were well known longfin fisheries in former
times. Indicators of the state of the LFE 21 resource are of particular concern, and suggest
that a cautious approach to management settings is required. The commercial catch of
LFE 21 in the current fishing year has not reached the level of the preceding fishing years.
External influences such as market conditions or environmental variables during the current
fishing year are unlikely to have been responsible for the lower commercial catch in this
stock.
121
EECo suggests that some reduction in (commercial) catch is warranted to mitigate any
sustainability risk. EECo suggest that the TACC could be reduced from 64 tonnes to 49
tonnes (ie, by 23%). Non-commercial interests indicate that the reduction should be at least
in the order of longfin option 2 as suggested by MFish.
122
MFish does not believe that adopting longfin option 1 for the varying of the TAC is
particularly viable in terms of reducing sustainability risks. This would reduce the existing
TAC from 92 tonnes to 75 tonnes. More active steps are required to arrest sustainability
risks for longfin stocks, and to allow for a rebuild. MFish recommends that the TAC is
varied using longfin option 2, such that it is reduced from 92 tonnes to 60 tonnes.
Hawke Bay / Wellington (QMA 22)
SFE 22
123
The SFE 22 stock continues to be fished by the commercial sector to levels near the TACC.
However, customary interests observe that the condition of the fishery is of concern. The
SFE 22 stock is the only North Island shortfin stock that showed a significant reduction in
the CPUE index between 1990 and 2002. In addition, data from one of the processing
factories showed evidence of a longer term decline in the average size of shortfin eels.
124
Customary interests seek some certainty that improvements in the stock will be evident in
the future, and therefore support reducing the TAC by more than that proposed by shortfin
option 2. These interests are concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the setting of
TACs in this QMA in 2004, mainly as a result of the accuracy of the commercial catch
information provided to MFish. Industry submissions do not provide any specific
comments about the SFE 22 stock, but suggest more generally that no reduction to shortfin
stock TACs are warranted at this time.
232 of 397
125
In contrast to other stocks, the options for TACs for SFE 22 in this review are relatively
close to the existing TAC. This is a function of the use of the fishery in recent years.
Nevertheless, it is not evident that utilisation outcomes are being achieved by all sectors
with the desired certainty at the current TAC, or likely to be achieved under shortfin option
1. Nevertheless, it is possible that at least the commercial sector is meeting its catch
requirements.
126
MFish considers that varying the TAC using shortfin option 2 (at or about recent catch)
would be desirable. Of the two options, this provides a more significant reduction in catch,
and may better enable a rebuild in the stock. The TAC would be reduced from 135 tonnes
to 121 tonnes. On-going monitoring of fishery indicators will enable better assessment of
any improvements.
LFE 22
127
Customary interests express considerable concern about the state of longfin populations
within the LFE 22 stock, to the extent that closure of the fishery is suggested as a viable
approach. These interests note that there are concerns about the size, distribution and
abundance of the resource. These concerns extend to significant depletion in some areas.
128
EECo suggests that some reduction in (commercial) catch is warranted to mitigate any
sustainability risk. EECo suggests the TACC could be reduced from 41 tonnes to 29 tonnes
(ie, by 29%).
129
In the context of the TAC, a significant reduction in longfin catch is warranted, consistent
with the assessment of longfin status generally, but also bearing in mind that the LFE 22
stock requires rebuilding. The average size of longfin in commercial catch from LFE 22
may be better than longfin stocks in the upper North Island, but slower growth rates in more
southern latitudes suggests a more conservative catch level is required.
130
MFish does not believe that adopting longfin option 1 for the varying of the TAC will
achieve a reduction in sustainability risks, and achieve some progress on rebuilding the
stock. This would reduce the existing TAC from 54 tonnes to 41 tonnes. More active steps
are required to arrest sustainability risks for longfin stocks. MFish recommends that the
TAC is varied using longfin option 2, such that it is reduced from 54 tonnes to 34 tonnes.
Taranaki / Rangitikei (QMA 23)
SFE 23
131
Customary interests have previously indicated their strong concerns about the state of the
eel fishery in this area, and these concerns are still evident. The QMA is well known for the
presence of longfin rather than shortfin. Customary interests from this area that attended
hui held during the consultation period support the general direction of ensuring the
resource is sustainably managed. They support reductions in catch as one means to improve
the status of the fishery.
132
EECo believes that no reduction in (commercial) catch from this stock is necessary at this
time. There has been an increase in the commercial use of the SFE 23 stock in the current
fishing year. This is likely to be as a result of some key commercial fishers leaving the
fishery in the previous year, and newer participants entering the fishery. MFish notes that,
233 of 397
in comparison to other quota management areas, there were few overall participants in the
Taranaki / Rangitikei area over recent years, and changes in participants is more likely to
have affected trends of commercial catch.
133
Given the concerns expressed by tangata whenua about the availability of eels across the
stock, and the need to improve the size structure of shortfin populations from this stock, a
reduction in the TAC is desirable. Under shortfin option 1 the TAC would be reduced from
50 tonnes to 43 tonnes. This represents a reasonable reduction in the short term, when
considering the prospects for improvement in the stock relative to the desired longer term
use of the stock, and the comparably low level of catch permitted relative to other shortfin
stocks.
134
However, MFish considers that varying the TAC using shortfin option 2 (at or about recent
catch) would enable a rebuild to occur with greater certainty. This approach is further
justified in recognising the likelihood of slower growth rates prevailing in more southern
latitudes of the North Island. The TAC would be reduced from 50 tonnes to 36 tonnes
under this approach. There are more significant implications for users of the resource under
this TAC option.
LFE 23
135
Customary interests have previously indicated their strong concerns about the state of the
eel fishery in this area, and these concerns are still evident. The QMA is well known for the
presence of longfin. Customary interests from this area attending hui held during the
consultation period support the general direction of ensuring the resource is sustainably
managed. They support reductions in catch as one means to improve the status of the
fishery.
136
EECo suggests that some reduction in (commercial) catch is warranted to mitigate any
sustainability risk. EECo suggests the TACC could be reduced from 41 tonnes to 24 tonnes
(ie, by 41%).
137
In the context of the TAC, a significant reduction in longfin catch is warranted, consistent
with the assessment of longfin status generally, but also bearing in mind that the LFE 23
stock requires rebuilding. The average size of longfin in commercial catch from LFE 23
may be better than longfin stocks in the upper North Island, but slower growth rates in more
southern latitudes suggests a more conservative catch level is required. Further, the
dominance of the longfin species in eel populations of the area could be affected if shortfins
became increasingly abundant relative to longfin. MFish notes that the closure of much of
the Whanganui River catchment in 2004-05 did not result in the displacement of
commercial fishers, or affect the recent catch of longfin.
138
MFish does not consider that adopting longfin option 1 for the varying of the TAC is
sufficient. This would reduce the existing TAC from 66 tonnes to 41 tonnes. More active
steps are required to reduce the sustainability risks, and help rebuild the stock.
139
MFish recommends that the TAC is varied using longfin option 2, such that it is reduced
from 66 tonnes to 34 tonnes. MFish considers that the sustainability benefits of reducing
the TAC for longfin in accordance with longfin option 2 outweigh the short term costs, let
alone the longer term consequences if action is not taken.
234 of 397
Allowance for customary fishing purposes
140
The majority of submitters support the retention of the existing allowance for customary
fishing interests. Submissions from tangata whenua highlight the importance of eel for the
exercise of customary practices, including the provision of eels for marae functions.
141
MFish reiterates there is an on-going obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries
Claims) Settlement Act 1992 to give recognition to the use and management practices of
Maori in the exercise of non-commercial fishing rights. In view of these obligations, MFish
recommends that customary harvest for eels be provided for in full when allowing for
customary fishing.
142
Some submitters highlight that the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations
1998 do not yet apply to freshwater fisheries in the North Island. One concern is that
customary authorisations issued under regulation 27/27A of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing)
Regulations 1998 do not result in reports on what was actually taken under the
authorisation. SeaFIC questions how statutory obligations to customary Maori interests are
assured if the Crown has no information on customary catch.
143
At present, eels may only be taken from the freshwater environment of the North Island for
limited customary purposes (ie, hui, tangi) in accordance with regulation 27/27A of the
Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986. There is no statutory requirement for
kaitiaki to report on their use of this regulatory authority.
144
MFish have been discussing the desirability of applying the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary
Fishing) Regulations 1998 to freshwater environments of the North and Chatham Islands
with a variety of hapu and iwi. This would provide hapu and iwi with a greater range of
options for authorising customary management practices.
145
On 7 August 2007 you approved an approach where MFish can now formally consult with
interested parties on this matter. In this regard, a letter was sent to fishery interests on 29
August 2007. Should the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 be
changed in the near future, it will allow for better information to be collected on the use of
fisheries resources for customary Maori purposes. MFish considers that it will be some
time before the full suite of measures provided by customary regulations can be
implemented. It would be premature to alter the current allowances for customary fishing
purposes at this time.
146
MFish recommends that the customary allowances are retained at existing levels. The
benefits of this approach are that it will provide some continuity in management
arrangements while broader regulatory reforms for customary fishing are discussed.
Allowance for recreational fishing purposes
General observations
Consideration of non-commercial views
147
The majority of non-commercial interests support a non-proportional approach to the
varying of allowances. Various reasons are provided for this approach. These include the
contribution that recreational eeling provides to healthy lifestyles and social well-being, and
235 of 397
the intended outcome of the management strategy to improve the availability of eels to noncommercial interests.
148
Some customary interests suggest that it would be premature to change recreational
allowances until better information on the impact of recreational fishing on the fishery is
available. More generally, MFish accepts that further information on the nature and extent
of the recreational use of eel stocks would be beneficial. This would make any future
management intervention (if any) more meaningful.
149
The recreational allowance was set in 2004 at a level below recreational catch estimates.
Some recreational interests observe that a further reduction would not be in keeping with the
statutory obligation in the Act to ‘allow for’ non-commercial interests in the eel fishery.
Similarly, recreational interests do not agree with the implementation of other measures to
control recreational catch where this would be inconsistent with statutory obligations and
the stated intention of the management strategy (ie, to improve the fishery’s availability to
non-commercial fishers).
150
MFish understands this point of view, but also observes that improved availability of eels to
the non-commercial sector could be interpreted in a number of ways. For example, the
availability of eels may be improved if the average size in the eel population was increased,
even though allowances for the overall stock were not changed. Nevertheless, MFish is
aware that the non-commercial use of the resource has been significantly reduced from
former times in each of the stocks, and generic improvements for these interests are
justifiable.
151
Further, one recreational interest group considers that MFish has failed to address
sustainability issues, and it is not appropriate for tangata whenua to implement customary
measures to ensure allowances are not exceeded. This observation recognises that Maori
can use customary practices to manage both customary and recreational take. The inference
is that this group believes that it should not have to act to control its own activities, where
sustainability issues should have been dealt with by MFish.
152
MFish considers that it has taken steps to ensure sustainability. The introduction of the eel
fishery into the QMS, and the subsequent review of catch limits, seeks to address
sustainability concerns held for the fishery. MFish notes that it, and its predecessor, has
advocated the introduction of the eel fishery into the QMS since the mid 1980s. Prior to
QMS introduction, access restrictions were applied to the commercial fishery, and a daily
bag limit applied to recreational fishers. The decisions of the previous Minister in 2004,
and the outcome of the present review, should encourage fishery interests to look to the
future, and to find common ground with other interests about how the fishery should be
managed.
153
One recreational interest group observes that there is a disparity between the allowances for
customary and recreational fishing interests, and suggests that a review of the recreational
allowance should be undertaken. The inference is that the recreational allowance should be
increased as Maori undertake most of their eel fishing activities under the recreational
allowance at this time. MFish believes a review of the recreational allowance on this basis
would be premature as an amendment to the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing)
Regulations 1998 is presently being discussed.
236 of 397
154
One customary group suggests that the recreational allowance should be reduced on a
proportional basis for both shortfin and longfin stocks. The group concerned observes they
are already making a sacrifice of their recreational and commercial interests in the stocks.
MFish is aware that the customary group in question is concerned about the state of the eel
fishery in QMA 22 (Hawke Bay/Wellington), and they are looking at ways of contributing
to the improvement in the status of the stocks.
155
MFish considers that the contribution that a reduction in recreational allowance would make
in QMA 22 is not significant in the overall reduction made from the TACs. For shortfin, the
difference between proportional and non-proportional approaches works out at 1 tonne, and
for longfin, the difference would be either 1 or 2 tonnes. MFish does not consider that this
difference is sufficiently large to warrant application of the proportional approach.
However, MFish appreciates that the customary group in question is voluntarily reducing its
fishing activities for recreational purposes, and that it is willing to take its own initiatives to
help the rebuild of the stocks.
Consideration of commercial views
156
The fishing industry (SeaFIC) presents a range of reasons why it does not support a nonproportional approach to allocation. It argues that MFish’s final advice in 2004 stated that
further adjustments in allowances would require evaluation of the recreational use of the eel
resource, and that in the absence of additional information, MFish should retain a
proportional approach to allowances in this fishery. MFish considers that its proposals to
retain the existing recreational allowances are not inconsistent with its previous position.
Obtaining further recreational catch information is highly desirable. However, it is probably
not feasible to expect such information to be collected to a reasonable degree of accuracy,
and within a reasonable cost, in the short to medium term.
157
MFish does not necessarily accept the argument that estimates of relative value are not a
valid basis for allocation decisions under the Act. Estimates or measures of value are likely
to translate into an assessment of social, cultural and economic well-being, if they are not
interpreted as being one and the same in the first instance. In essence, one’s well-being is
likely to be enriched if the values associated with the fishery, and the variety of its uses, are
recognised and provided for.
158
SeaFIC argues that recreational catch was not reduced in 2004, even though the proportional
approach to the setting of the original recreational allowance and TACCs was applied.
SeaFIC hold this view because measures were not applied that would have potentially
resulted in a reduction of recreational catch. Given this, it does not believe that further
‘non-proportional’ reductions to TACCs are justified. MFish notes however, that at the
time, and prior to 2004, there was some evidence that the recreational sector had shown
some self-restraint in undertaking eel fishing (eg, rähui). As such, further measures to
restrain recreational catch were not considered appropriate at the time.
159
In addition, the introduction of a daily bag limit in the mid-1990s may have provided an
indirect constraint on recreational catch. There were several non-commercial fishery
interests who were disappointed to learn that they could no longer take catches in excess of
six eels on a recreational basis. This issue has been raised at a number of hui during the
1990s through to recent times. MFish considers that the justification for a non-proportional
approach to allocation at this stage is reasonable.
237 of 397
160
A further argument is that the management strategy currently in place has not been
confirmed by the current Minister, nor by all users through a fishery plan process. MFish
seeks your confirmation of the current management strategy as one of the recommendations
in this review. The fisheries planning process will provide a better basis for setting out
management objectives in the future.
161
SeaFIC believes that the analysis of impacts of TAC/TACC reductions is limited, and that
MFish need to consider the longer term consequences of increasing the proportion of noncommercial catch of eels. MFish advised in 2004 that the initial management settings for
the North Island eel fishery were a reasonable starting point, noting that management
measures would be progressively refined. For example, new information that more
accurately accounts for the recent use of the non-commercial fishery might adjust the initial
allowances set. Similarly, the extent of non-commercial catch, and whether it is
appropriately classed as recreational or customary catch, will be a feature of further analysis
if there is a change in the application of customary fisheries regulations in the North and
Chatham Islands.
162
SeaFIC is concerned that if non-commercial interests represent a larger proportion of a
stock, then there is a greater risk that the TAC could be exceeded, if monitoring of the catch
from these interests is not improved. MFish does not consider it appropriate to shy away
from a recommendation to retain an allowance where this might give rise to a greater
proportion of the fishery being unmonitored, and generating uncertainty for future TACs.
More appropriately, if a decision was made to increase an allowance on the basis of better
well-being and other relevant considerations, then the consequence of that would be to
ensure that steps were taken (where possible) to better assess the use of that allowance.
163
MFish accepts that the monitoring of non-commercial catch is usually difficult, and will
require on-going investment of resources. The non-commercial use of eels presents some
additional challenges that are not apparent with marine species. MFish has identified the
collection of such information in its Medium Term Research Plans, and will continue to
investigate other avenues where this information can be obtained.
Recommendation on allowance for recreational interests
164
On balance, MFish considers the current allowances for recreational interests for the eight
eel stocks of the North Island should be retained, and a non-proportional approach adopted.
In a quantitative sense, the difference in the recreational allowance using proportional and
non-proportional options is typically a few tonnes only for each stock (see Tables 1-4). The
effect of applying a non-proportional approach to the decisions on recreational allowance is
generally of little consequence to the decisions on the TACC. MFish notes that if you
believe that social, economic and cultural values are enhanced through a proportional
reduction in allowances then you should adopt that proportional approach when determining
allowances.
165
Further, existing TACCs have not been fully utilised in recent years, other than perhaps
SFE 22 in the 2005-06 fishing year. Therefore, the full range of social, cultural and
economic benefits derived from the commercial use of most stocks has not eventuated.
Maintaining existing recreational allowances do not significantly affect the resulting
recommendations for TACCs, or the current benefits derived in terms of well-being of the
commercial sector.
238 of 397
166
MFish considers it would be more beneficial for each of the stocks to gather further
information on:
a)
the relative scale of recreational catch (noting that obtaining accurate information
will be difficult);
b)
the aspirations of the recreational sector in terms of well-being derived from use of
the resource; and
c)
what measures might be appropriate to apply to the sector in any future management
reviews to ensure sustainable use.
Allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality
167
MFish recommends that the existing allowances for other sources of fishing related
mortality be retained for all North Island eel stocks.
168
One submitter is concerned about mortality of eels as they attempt to migrate past hydroelectric power stations, or any ‘trap and transfer’ programme implemented at these sites.
While the mortality of eels associated with natural migration past dams is a valid concern, it
is not a matter relevant to this allowance.
169
This allowance relates to all known fishing related mortality including illegal fishing such
as blackmarket poaching, exceeding amateur bag limits or gear restrictions, illegal
commercial fishing, mortality associated with holding bags etc. While a relevant
consideration, MFish does not consider that the mortality of juveniles during trap and
transfer fishing activities is significant. MFish has conditions on special permits authorising
these activities for the permit holder to report on such matters. The juvenile eels reaching
dams would die in the absence of these initiatives.
170
Where non-fishing activities affect a stock, this would be a relevant consideration to take
into account when setting a TAC. For example, the drainage of wetlands and removal of
aquatic vegetation may have an impact on the biomass of the eel stock of interest.
Total Allowable Commercial Catch
General observations
171
Your powers for setting and varying the TACC are exercised under section 20 of the Act.
Allowances for Maori non-commercial fishing interests, recreational interests and all other
mortality caused by fishing are set under section 21. In setting the allowances and the
TACC you are required to consider the social, economic and cultural well-being of the
persons in each sector.
172
Customary, recreational and environmental interests strongly support reductions to the
TACCs. Commercial interests only support reductions to longfin TACCs, but not to the
extent envisaged by MFish. Significant reductions are sought by MFish so that the rebuild
of shortfin and longfin stocks is evident in future years, as well as recognising the need for
caution. Recreational interests observe that the current TACCs are not acting as a constraint
on commercial catch in all but one stock during the 2005-06 fishing year (SFE 22).
Recreational interests wish to see TACCs varied to levels below actual catch in order that a
rebuild can take effect.
239 of 397
173
The TACCs reflect the portion of the TAC that commercial fishers can use. The proposed
TACCs, if agreed, will result in less commercial catch than previously allowed. While the
difference between the existing TACCs and proposed TACCs appear large, it is important to
appreciate that TACCs have been well under-caught for most stocks. You will need to
consider the relative costs and benefits of the proposed TACCs relative to their impact on
social, cultural and economic well-being.
174
The economic effects of reducing TACCs will be of more consequence where these are
varied to levels below recent commercial catch. The IPP provided an analysis of the
financial effects of the proposed reductions in terms of potential economic loss at the stock
level, should TACCs be varied to levels lower than average recent commercial catch. The
Table with these figures is reproduced in this final advice paper as Table 6.
175
The figures produced in the last column of Table 6 that follow represent the financial
impacts should the smallest TACC option be chosen for a stock, when compared to the
average commercial catch taken in the 2004-05 and 2005-06 fishing years. Should you
decide to pursue a less conservative TAC and TACC for a stock, the financial impact will
be lower. The immediate impacts are only of significant consequence for longfin stocks.
For shortfin stocks, there is little or no impact, as similar levels of harvest are available with
the recommended TACCs. Some more specific comments on the impacts of TACC
reductions and their relative costs and benefits follow in each of the stock sections.
Consideration is also made to trends in commercial catch in the current fishing year, as
updated in Table 5.
Table 6:
176
Potential economic loss ($) for North Island eel stocks using port price and export price, where proposed
TACCs are reduced below actual average commercial catch (based on catch in 2004-05 and 2005-06
fishing years).
Stock
Range in Port
TACC
Price
reduction
($/kg)
(t)
from
prior levels
Export
Price
($/kg)
Potential economic loss ($)
based on TACC reduction
from
actual
average
commercial catch using port
price and export price
(actual tonnage reduction in
brackets)
SFE 20
27 - 63
3.87
8.37
$0
(0)
LFE 20
19 - 28
3.88
8.37
$27,160 - $58,590
(7)
SFE 21
14 - 29
3.87
8.37
$0
(0)
LFE 21
15 - 32
3.88
8.37
$58,200 – $125,550
(15)
SFE 22
6 - 14
3.87
8.37
$0
(0)
LFE 22
12 - 20
3.88
8.37
$23,280 – $50,220
(6)
SFE 23
6 - 14
3.87
8.37
$0
(0)
LFE 23
21-32
3.88
8.37
$58,200 - $125,550
(15)
In response to the comment that existing TACCs are not constraining catch, MFish believes
it is fair to observe that existing commercial catch is reduced from catch experienced prior
240 of 397
to the application of catch limits under the QMS. However, it accepts that the existing
TACCs provide opportunity for further commercial catch that may not be in the best
interests of the relevant stock.
177
MFish appreciates that EECo has looked to offer alternative options for TACC reductions.
However, MFish does not consider the suggested alternatives are sufficient to provide the
improvements in fishery performance that the North Island eel industry and others are
looking for over the medium term. Some of EECo’s proposed TACCs could result in
further increases in commercial catch. The scope for increased commercial catch might
provide a short term economic benefit, but may also come at a longer term cost. Any future
TACC reduction required could give rise to more economic impacts to commercial fishers
than at present.
178
A relatively large percentage of the TACCs for North Island eel stocks has not been used in
recent years (other than in the SFE 22 stock for the 2005-06 fishing year). Accordingly,
there will still be a reasonable amount of scope for commercial fishers to maintain viable
operations should TACCs be reduced to levels of recent use. As commercial eel fishers are
sometimes involved in other industries (eg, hunting), or pursue eel fishing as a seasonal or
part-time business, MFish believes the industry will be able to adjust its operations to any
reduced TACC levels without significant disruption.
179
MFish notes that eel processing facilities have continued to operate at lower tonnages in
recent years, and no concerns about their viability were expressed through the submission
process.
Northland / Auckland (QMA 20)
180
One customary submitter suggested the commercial fishery should be closed for two years
in the Far North. MFish notes that the quantity of commercial fishing in the Far North (Te
Hiku o Te Ika) is not significant in the overall context of the SFE 20 and LFE 20 stock.
With reduced TACCs recommended for the SFE 20 and LFE 20 stocks, it may be that some
of the concerns can be allayed, at least as they relate to potential commercial fishing
impacts.
181
MFish recommends that the TACC for SFE 20 should be set using shortfin option 2 (at or
about recent catch), using a non-proportional approach. The varied TACC recommended is
86 tonnes. This would have the effect of a slight decrease in commercial catch, based on
catch made in 2005-06, and landings from the current fishing year (see Table 5).
182
MFish recommends that the TACC for LFE 20 should be set using longfin option 2 (at or
about 20% below recent catch), using a non-proportional approach. The varied TACC
recommended is 19 tonnes. This would have the effect of a slight decrease in commercial
catch, based on catch made in 2005-06, and landings from the current fishing year (see
Table 5).
Waikato / Poverty Bay (QMA 21)
183
MFish acknowledges that customary interests seek significant reductions in commercial
catch from the Waikato part of the QMA 21 area. Industry members also seek stock
improvements, and recognise that eel stocks in this QMA have been extensively fished.
Some commercial fishers have indicated that some improvements in average size (both
241 of 397
species) in some localities are evident since 2004, although MFish considers that general
improvements are required across the full extent of the stock.
184
TKOTAW queries whether compensation is available to offset the loss of commercial
activity for eels. MFish notes that fisheries legislation provides that compensation is not
able to be claimed for decisions arising from measures to ensure sustainability. If a TACC
for a stock is increased in the future, then quota share holders automatically benefit from
that, without payment to the Crown.
185
MFish recommends that the TACC for SFE 21 should be set using shortfin option 2 (at or
about recent catch), using a non-proportional approach. The varied TACC recommended is
134 tonnes. This catch level would allow for higher catches than experienced in the current
fishing year, but would be a slight reduction on commercial catch from the stock in the
2005-06 fishing year (see Table 5).
186
MFish recommends that the TACC for LFE 21 should be set using longfin option 2 (at or
about 20% below recent catch), using a non-proportional approach. The varied TACC
recommended is 32 tonnes. This would provide a reduction from catch levels experienced
in 2005-06, but would still be higher than catch levels experienced in the current fishing
year (see Table 5).
Hawke Bay / Wellington (QMA 22)
187
MFish recommends that the TACC for SFE 22 should be set using shortfin option 2 (at or
about recent catch), using a non-proportional approach. The varied TACC recommended is
94 tonnes. This catch level is slightly less than that experienced in the 2005-06 fishing year,
but more than taken in the current fishing year (see Table 5).
188
MFish recommends that the TACC for LFE 22 should be set using longfin option 2 (at or
about 20% below recent catch), using a non-proportional approach. The varied TACC
recommended is 21 tonnes. This is less than the catch levels experienced in recent fishing
years (see Table 5).
Taranaki / Rangitikei (QMA 23)
189
MFish recommends that the TACC for SFE 23 should be set using shortfin option 2 (at or
about recent catch), using a non-proportional approach. The varied TACC recommended is
23 tonnes. This catch level is less than the catch made in the 2005-06 fishing year, and the
current fishing year.
190
MFish recommends that the TACC for LFE 23 should be set using longfin option 2 (at or
about 20% below recent catch), using a non-proportional approach. The varied TACC
recommended is 9 tonnes. This catch level is significantly less than catch made in recent
fishing years.
Statutory Considerations
191
A discussion of the statutory considerations pertinent to the final advice paper is contained
at the end of this paper.
242 of 397
Other Management Issues
Future review of catch limits
192
Conservation interests suggest that the catch limits should be reviewed in the future. MFish
intends to undertake periodic reviews of the performance of the fishery, and the indicators
of its status. Commercial catch and research information is collected each year which can
be incorporated into an evaluation of management needs, or assessed against the
management strategy. In addition, initiatives other than catch limit reviews may be
undertaken. Further development of management objectives through the fisheries plan
process will enable the best mix of tools to be applied to the fishery.
Geographic scale of reporting commercial catch
193
There is a desire to record commercial catch to a finer scale than presently provided for in
statutory returns. MFish has commissioned research over the last two or three years to
better understand the distribution of commercial catch at a more useful scale. If this
research assists in demonstrating that fine scale reporting is useful, methods will need to be
explored that allow this kind of reporting through the normal statutory process.
Harvest management
194
Submitters raise a number of other suggestions about how mainly commercial fishing
should be carried out, including a focus on the fishing of waterways where downstream
migration is blocked, and such waters are stocked with juvenile eels. The commercial
sector already fishes some catchments in this way, and stocks them accordingly once
appropriate statutory authority is received. However, it is also important to ensure that
downstream passage past such blockages is addressed for the longer term.
195
A further submission suggests the taking of eels in a migratory condition should be
prohibited. Eels undertaking their spawning run typically are referred to as silver eels given
their colour. Eels in such a condition do not eat, and are less likely to be captured.
Commercial fishers in the North Island have undertaken not to land any silver eels if caught,
and return them to the water. MFish has not verified the success of this undertaking beyond
periodic verbal assurances from key North Island industry representatives (as recently as
August 2007). More generally, it is not known whether this practice is carried out in the
South and Chatham Islands.
196
The recent application of the 4 kg maximum size limit in the North and Chatham Islands
from April 2007, will ensure that larger eels are returned to the water in the first instance.
Submitters suggest that the current practice of commercial fishers in the North Island
voluntarily returning adults eels in migratory condition should be regulated more generally.
This suggestion should be further discussed in the context of practices in other parts of the
country, and any refinements to other sustainability measures that may address maximising
spawning escapement.
197
One submitter suggests that spawning escapement could be maximised by a closure of
fishing (except customary fishing) between mid-February and the end of May. To close
fishing in this period assumes that eels in migratory condition are being caught. That may
not be the case, or at least in any number. Similarly, a seasonal closure would disrupt the
fishing opportunities for eels that are not in migratory condition. At this time MFish does
243 of 397
not consider that a seasonal closure is the best way to address the maximisation of spawning
escapement.
Size limits
198
Environmental and customary interests do not consider the current maximum size limit of 4
kg for commercial fishing to be effective. A lower measure is supported so that a greater
proportion of the female eel population can reach sexual maturity without being vulnerable
to fishing activity. Some interests suggest that consideration should be given to applying a
maximum size limit measure to non-commercial interests.
199
MFish notes that the maximum size limit at least now applies consistently across the
country for commercial fishers. This took some time to achieve, and fishery interests are
increasingly appreciating the need for such other measures. However, the effectiveness of
the maximum size limit measure for spawning escapement purposes should not be
considered in isolation, or only in the context of present day eel population structures.
200
There are a number of other tools that all contribute to increasing spawning escapement, or
increase the effectiveness of the maximum size limit in the medium term. These include the
setting of conservative catch limits that seek to improve population size structures, and the
complementary closure of specified catchments. The current review focuses on catch limits,
and some catchment closures have already been implemented. The maximum size limit for
commercial fishers could be reduced in the future, but it might be wise to consider this in
the context of more defined fisheries management objectives. These objectives may change
the focus on which tools should be applied to the fishery.
201
The need or desirability of a maximum size limit for eels taken by non-commercial interests
has not been adequately discussed with this diverse sector. Furthermore, there are probably
more generic and higher priority issues for MFish to be engaging with these interests about.
For example, the proposed amendment of the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing)
Regulations 1998 will have implications for how some non-commercial eel fishing activities
may be undertaken.
202
One submitter suggests that the minimum legal size for eels taken by commercial fishers
should be increased from 220 grams to 300 grams in order that eels of a more culturally
appropriate size become available. There are a variety of ways to ensure that size
distributions of eel population are managed to preferred sizes. Harvest strategies could be
put in place for a particular area, or other areas set aside from fishing by various sectors.
Escapement tubes within fyke nets could be increased in size in particular areas, or catch
could be sorted on gear retrieval to return fish of smaller legal size. A Waikato processor
and commercial fishers landing to that plant presently have a voluntary arrangement where
eels less than 300 grams are not landed.
Prohibition of commercial fishing in areas for spawning escapement
purposes
203
Submitters generally support the prohibition of commercial fishing from further catchments
and migration pathways as a way to increasing spawning escapement. MFish took the
initiative to propose and implement some catchment closures for commercial fishing in the
North Island in 2004. At that time MFish observed that consideration of other areas would
be desirable over the medium term, and additional research information would be useful in
244 of 397
selecting appropriate candidates for further evaluation. A research report is due to be
published that will assist with that process. MFish acknowledges suggestions for further
areas that could be considered for commercial closure.
Prohibition of commercial fishing in areas of traditional importance for Maori
customary food gathering
204
A submitter observes that more areas of traditional importance to Maori should be closed to
commercial fishing. Commercial fishing was prohibited from some distinct areas for this
purpose under s 186 of the Act in 2004-05. Further proposals could be considered within
the context of broader strategies for management of the stock and/or area, and how they
might be integrated with existing measures.
205
Should the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 be extended to apply
to freshwater environments in the North Island, there is the possibility that mataitai could be
created. A mataitai has been created in the Mataura River in Southland.
Other recreational controls / initiatives
206
Submitters want better monitoring of the recreational catch so that trends in recreational use
of the eel fishery can be taken into account when considering management options. MFish
has commissioned a research project to assess possible methodologies for estimating
customary eel catch. A report on this research is due for review in March 2008. Outcomes
from this research may be applicable to assessing methods to better estimate recreational
catch. However, MFish notes that it is probably not feasible to collect cost-effective and
accurate recreational catch estimates in the short to medium term.
207
Estimating non-commercial catch with reasonable certainty is a difficult research area.
However, improvements in assessing customary catch would be possible if the Fisheries
(Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 were amended to extend to freshwater
environments of the North and Chatham Islands. Understanding trends in customary catch
may also provide insights into the recreational use of eels, particularly by Maori.
208
MFish considers that other suggestions to control recreational catch are premature or do not
take into account existing measures (eg, the daily bag limit, gear restrictions). More
importantly, it would be appropriate to await the outcome of the current proposal to amend
the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998. In the event that these
regulations then apply to freshwater environments of the North and Chatham Islands, the
nature and extent of non-commercial catch caught under these regulations may change.
Further, the various tools under these regulations could better control local use of eel
resources. MFish would welcome initiatives by various non-commercial interests to better
monitor their own fishing activities.
Research
209
Submitters generally support more research being done to understand the state of various eel
stocks, and the effect of various management strategies or interventions. MFish has an
active research programme in place for the eel fishery, and each year additional research
work is commissioned. Fishery interests are encouraged to attend annual Research Planning
Group or Fishery Assessment Working Group meetings to participate in these discussions.
245 of 397
Public awareness
210
MFish agrees with a submission that greater public awareness of the issues facing the eel
fishery, and its environment, is required. Parties involved in the current process could
constructively contribute to this greater awareness.
Habitat management
211
Submitters generally request that MFish take a more active role in habitat management
issues, as it affects fisheries resources. Habitat management issues are principally the
domain of district and regional councils that work within the statutory framework of the
Resource Management Act 1991. MFish has taken some initiatives to bring to the attention
of councils the importance of good habitat management practices. However, in the first
instance MFish continues to direct its energies towards improving the fisheries management
framework. With these improvements in place, MFish may be able to take a greater role in
resource management issues in the future.
212
MFish has commissioned some research on drain clearance impacts, written to some
councils about such activities, and facilitated discussions with power companies regarding
fish passage issues. MFish encourages fishery interests to recognise their common interest
on environmental issues, and advocate for the change and accountability in management
practices authorised under the Resource Management Act, where these practices affect
fishery values.
Fisheries plans
213
The development of fisheries plans will better set out the fisheries management objectives
for New Zealand fisheries. MFish has developed documents for the first stage of the
fisheries plan process for eels. This step gathers the information known about the fishery
and its current management. Documents have been prepared separately for North and South
Islands at this stage. The South Island document builds on the plans developed by ‘Te
Waka a Maui me ona Toka Mahi Tuna’ in the 1990s. Given that the biological stock
distribution of eels extends nationally (or internationally for shortfin), MFish appreciates
that there are elements of eel fishery management that should be considered on a national
basis. There is a need to work towards this goal, while capturing the needs of interests at a
range of other geographic scales.
Management arrangements for South Island eel fishery
214
Submitters seek better integration of eel fishery management across the country for the
separate species. In order to achieve this, submitters suggest the South Island eel stocks,
which combine both shortfin and longfin into the one stock, need to be separated consistent
with the stock definitions for the North and Chatham Islands.
215
Originally, South Island eel stocks were proposed to be established as stocks on a separate
basis (ie, SFE and LFE). The 1997 Deed of Settlement between the Crown and Ngai Tahu
records that shortfin and longfin should be managed separately where practicable.
216
However, given the constraints of the legislation used at the time, the information readily
available, and the treaty settlement obligation to introduce the South Island eel fishery into
246 of 397
the QMS by October 2000, there was insufficient time to determine the initial settings for
each of the respective species.
217
Section 25 of the Act provides a basis for the Minister to reconsider the stock definitions
applicable to various species. Better information on the proportion of shortfin to longfin in
the various South Island QMAs is now more readily available. Some submitters suggested
that a review of catch limits in the South Island should be undertaken. MFish believes that
it might be better to resolve the definition of appropriate stocks first, or concurrently, with
any proposals to adjust catch limits affecting either shortfin or longfin in the South Island.
Statutory Considerations
218
In forming the management options for North Island eel stocks, the following statutory
considerations were taken into account.
219
Section 8: The purpose of the Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources
while ensuring sustainability. The proposed management options seek to continue to allow
for use while ensuring sustainability of respective eel stocks by setting a TAC that improves
the population structure and abundance over the medium term, while bringing a halt to any
decline in the fishery over the short term, such that the fishery:
220
221
a)
is sustainably managed;
b)
its availability to non-commercial fishers in particular is improved; and
c)
the relationship with interdependent stocks is also improved.
On balance, the revised management settings for all North Island eel stocks are likely to
better enable people to provide for their social, cultural and economic aspirations, although
the benefits to some stocks may take time to materialise. Social, cultural and economic
considerations of generic application follow:
a)
Enabling people to provide for their social and cultural aspirations is of particular
importance for this fishery. The eel fishery is one of the most important for Mäori
on a cultural basis, as it forms a key element of their customs, and is considered a
taonga or treasure. This value extends to social considerations, as the species is
taken on a non-commercial basis as a source of food. Eel fishing is also a leisure
activity enjoyed by outdoor enthusiasts.
b)
The eel fishery in the North Island forms the basis of a moderately small sized
commercial fishery that provides direct employment for commercial fishers, many of
which operate on a part-time or seasonal basis, although processing at least two of
the three main factories occurs year round.
c)
Economic impacts for the fishing industry in the short term are dependent on the
TAC and TACC options chosen. The impacts at the level of the stock are of modest
direct consequence for options that bring catch limits to within recent catch.
Improved stock structure and abundance will lead to increased economic efficiencies
in the medium term, something that is likely to be welcomed by the eel industry.
Over time, improvements in CPUE will further reduce the relative costs associated
with undertaking commercial fishing.
Section 14: Section 14 of the Act provides that the Minister may set a TAC for a stock other
than in accordance with s 13(2) of the Act (ie, at or above a biomass level that would
247 of 397
produce maximum sustainable yield), where the Minister is satisfied that the purpose of the
Act would be better achieved. This section may only be used for stocks having particular
characteristics or management arrangements that make standard fishery stock assessments
inappropriate.
222
In the case of North Island eel stocks, it was determined in 2004 that an insufficient level of
information was available to have confidence that TACs could be set under s 13(2) of the
Act. To better serve the purpose of the Act under s 14, the previous Minister agreed to a
management strategy for North Island eel stocks to guide the setting of TACs. Accordingly,
it is still appropriate to manage the stocks under s 14 of the Act for the short to medium
term.
223
Section 14(8) sets out the criteria that stocks have to meet to be listed on the Third
Schedule. This section may only be used for stocks having particular characteristics or
management arrangements that make standard fishery stock assessments inappropriate.
224
Section 11(1)(c): Eel fisheries are typically not subject to significant natural variability in
their biomass to the extent that stocks become susceptible to over-fishing on this basis
alone. This is the case for all North Island eel stocks. The longevity and relatively slow
growth rates experienced by eels in most waters, coupled with their reduced activity over
winter months in southern North Island waters, plus the limiting factor of available habitat
for larger eels, further reduces the scope for significant increases in biomass over the short
term.
225
Section 9(a) and (b): The nature and extent of bycatch of any associated or dependent
species in this fishery is not considered significant – it is likely that most species can be
released unharmed given the use of the fishing methods employed. A reduction in overall
harvesting pressure as provided by the TACs proposed is likely to assist in maintaining
biodiversity. The presence of large eels, as top predators in the food chain, is likely to be of
particular significance. Reducing TACs as proposed will contribute to an improvement in
population structures, and an increased proportion of large eels in a stock. The presence of
large eels may inhibit the numbers of introduced fish species in localised areas.
226
Section 9(c): No habitats of particular significance for fisheries management have been
identified within the North Island that would be at risk as a result of eel fishing. It is
considered unlikely that the fishing methods employed to take eels would have a
demonstrable adverse effect on such habitats. MFish also notes that a range of habitats of
particular significance for fisheries management have been protected to varying degrees
under other legislation for other purposes (eg, National Parks Act 1980, Reserves Act 1977),
so that fishing is restricted in those areas.
227
Section 11(1)(a): The effects of fishing on any stock and the aquatic environment are
covered in the preceding paragraphs on section 9 considerations. MFish considers that the
effects of fishing on all North Island eel stocks and interdependent stocks require some
attention.
248 of 397
228
Interdependent stocks include both the associated species within the food web where eels
are a key species, as well as other eel stocks, either within the same quota management area,
or in other quota management areas. MFish is aware that the finfish species composition of
some aquatic habitats in the northern North Island (eg, Waikato) has undergone significant
change over at least the last 30-40 years. As a result of these changes:
a)
introduced species have changed the ecological structure of the biological
community;
b)
historical commercial fishing activity has reduced the number of large eels
(particularly longfin), and proportionately increased the number of shortfin; and
c)
relatively narrow population size structures, and potentially higher densities of
smaller to moderately sized eels, have resulted.
229
These outcomes are likely to further affect species assemblages, sex ratios, and productivity
of eel fisheries, in addition to any more far-reaching impacts on the sustainable use of other
longfin stocks (eg, relative success of spawning escapement and subsequent recruitment).
Stakeholders will need to contribute to the further specification of these issues such that
TACs or other management settings can be adjusted to meet these matters over time.
230
Section 5(a): There is a wide range of international obligations relating to fishing (including
sustainability and utilisation of fishstocks and maintaining biodiversity). MFish considers
issues arising under international obligations are adequately addressed in the management
options proposed for North Island eel stocks, noting that the legislative framework under the
Act provides on-going scope to address issues that might arise from international
obligations. Furthermore, the current proposals represent a further step in a direction where
sustainability, utilisation and biodiversity values are improved.
231
Section 5(b): MFish considers that the management measures proposed are consistent with
the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. MFish
notes its on-going obligation to ensure that non-commercial Mäori fishing interests are
provided for in this and any subsequent review of management settings.
232
Section 11(1)(b): The existing controls that apply to eel stocks in the North Island include
catch limits and allowances as part of being managed under the QMS, Sixth Schedule listing
that provides for the return to the water of unwanted commercial catch, closed areas, a
minimum and maximum legal size for commercial fishers; and a requirement for
escapement tubes of specified diameters to be inserted in fyke nets used by commercial
fishers. Recreational fishers are limited to a bag limit of six eels per day, and may not use
more than one fyke net or hïnaki per person. While a person fishing recreationally need not
have escapement tubes in their nets, they are limited to using a net with a mesh size of not
less than 12 mm. At present, customary fishing purposes that may be authorised in
freshwaters of the North Island are limited to fishing for hui and tangi only. The review of
the TAC, allowances and TACC will not have an effect on the ability of these controls to be
effective.
233
Section 11(2A)(b): No approved fisheries plans under s 11A of the Act exist for any of the
North Island eel stocks.
234
Section 11(2A)(a) and (c): For the North Island eel fishery, the revision of catch limits in
each quota management area are not considered to warrant an immediate need to generate or
withdraw fisheries or conservation services for any of the relevant stocks. The draft
249 of 397
medium term research plan for the national eel fishery outlines research directions already
adopted by MFish. No decision has been made not to require a service in this fishery. The
level of conservation or fisheries services that might be required will depend on the range
and level of risks associated with the use of any particular fishery. The range and level of
risks associated with use at the proposed catch limits discussed in this paper are not so
significant to change the level of services required in the short to medium term.
235
Section 11(2)(a) and (b): There are no specific provisions applicable to the coastal marine
area known to exist in any policy statement or plan under the Resource Management Act
1991, or any management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1987, that are
relevant to the varying of sustainability measures, such as the catch limits, for North Island
eel stocks.
236
Section 11(2)(c): Before setting any sustainability measure relevant to the Hauraki Gulf (eg,
a TAC for the SFE 20, LFE 20, SFE 21 or LFE 21 stocks), the Minister must have regard to
s 7 and s 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. The Hauraki Gulf is defined in that
Act to include all coastal waters and offshore islands from just south of Mangawhai,
offshore to the Moko Hinau Islands, and south to Homunga Point (north of Waihi Beach).
This Act’s objectives are to protect and maintain the natural resources of the Hauraki Gulf
as a matter of national importance. Importantly for eels, s 7 and s 8 also apply to the
catchment of the Hauraki Gulf.
237
The varying of sustainability measures for the four eel stocks having part of their areas
common to the Marine Park area will further the objectives set out in s 7 and s 8 of the
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, and ensure that the range of values associated with the
use of the eel resource are enhanced for the people and communities in the area. Reductions
in commercial catch should lead to improved economic opportunities or cost savings in the
future as the eel stock rebuild. Eels, particularly shortfin, are taken both on a noncommercial and commercial basis in estuarine and salt waters of the Marine Park. As the
proposed measures seek to reduce the amount of take for the relevant eel stocks for the
purposes of sustainability, MFish considers that this is consistent with protecting and/or
enhancing the life supporting capacity of a natural resource found within the Gulf.
238
Section 20(1) and (2) and (5) provides the authority to set and/or vary the TACC by way of
notice. The setting or the variation for any quota management stock requires the TAC to be
set first before the setting of a TACC.
239
Section 21(1)(a and b) and (4)(a and b) and (5): The nature of the fishery and the interests
of the respective fishing sectors have been considered in setting the allowances for
recreational and Mäori customary interests and the TACC, and all other mortality to the
stock caused by fishing. No mätaitai exists in any of the quota management areas that
would materially affect eel fishing. Area closures or fishing method restrictions applied
under s 186A of the Act for customary fishing purposes are limited to small coastal areas
that are not the subject of eel fishing, or the restrictions apply to species other than eels. No
restrictions on commercial fishing have been implemented in any area within any of the
North Island eel stocks for recreational interests arising from s 311 of the Act.
250 of 397
240
Section 10: MFish has used a variety of information sources to contribute to the
development of this paper in addition to the submissions received in response to the IPP.
Some of these are written accounts drawn from a range of disciplines, including:
a)
reports provided for purposes other than strictly fisheries management;
b)
a reasonably extensive range of research reports on the fishery conducted for either
MFish or other agencies over the last decade; and
c)
an array of oral accounts to MFish staff over many years that trace the historical or
present uses and values of the resource. Such observations have been made through
attendance at hui, convening of workshops and seminars, personal interactions with
a range of stakeholders, and first hand experience.
241
There is a reasonably extensive amount of information on the fishery and its uses sufficient
to make the recommendations contained in this paper. However, there are some areas
where information is uncertain or inadequate, such that a cautious approach should be
adopted. In general the absence or uncertainty in the best available information is not a
reason to postpone management action. The approach taken should further the purpose of
the Act by ensuring that sustainability settings are sufficiently robust to allow for a rebuild
of all North Island eel stocks over the medium term. Within that context, there is a greater
probability that utilisation opportunities in the future will be improved. On-going review of
new information will be required.
242
On a scientific basis, comparative quantitative information on the status of the resource does
not extend as far back as is desirable, given the longevity of each species. Research
findings, although not necessarily conclusive in all cases, or representative of all areas, are
suggesting that trends in recruitment, population size structure, harvest rates and spawning
escapement are of concern and/or warrant particular consideration. This is particularly so
for longfin stocks. Further, there is a lack of scientific information on the role of eel species
in maintaining biological diversity, and quantitative information on their relationship with
associated and dependent species.
243
There is reasonably good information about the use of the fishery by the commercial sector,
but quantification of the non-commercial use of the resource has not been attempted at the
level of a stock, or extensively at other scales. Development of a method for assessing noncommercial catch is the subject of a current research project. Oral accounts of the
importance of the resource for non-commercial stakeholders have been considered in
developing this paper.
251 of 397
252 of 397
FLATFISH (FLA 3) – FINAL ADVICE
Figure 1: Quota Management Area (QMA) for Flatfish FLA 3
Executive Summary
1
Following a review of the FLA 3 fishery, you are requested to make a decision on the
appropriate Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and allowances for FLA 3. A TAC and other
allowances have not yet been set for FLA 3; although a Total Allowable Commercial Catch
(TACC) of 2 681 tonnes is in place.
2
An Initial Position Paper (IPP), released 19 June 2007, proposed four TAC options for FLA
3. TACs, TACCs, and allowances were based on recent catches and/or historic allocations.
TAC options represented increasingly cautious steps in terms of sustainability, with
correspondingly greater socio-economic impacts.
3
There is little research information on the abundance of flatfish in FLA 3, and estimates of
current and reference biomass are not available. The TACC has never been fully caught and
recent commercial catches have been substantially below the TACC. Anecdotal information
from commercial and recreational fishers suggests current catches may not be sustainable.
Recreational fishers consider FLA 3 abundance is so low that they are effectively being
denied access to the resource.
253 of 397
4
Some fishers consider that intensive fishing effort in recent years has caused a decline in
recruitment and abundance. Flatfish populations, however, are highly variable and,
rather than fishing pressure, the decline in abundance may be caused by environmental or
climatic factors.
5
The 2007 Plenary for FLA 3 states that a constant catch at the level of the current TACC is
unlikely to be attainable or sustainable, nor would it be likely to allow the stock to move
towards a size that will support the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY).
6
Given this statement, which has remained unchallenged in submissions on the IPP, it is
unlikely that a TAC based on the status quo TACC (Option 1 in the IPP) will meet your
requirement to set a TAC that maintains the FLA 3 stock at or above BMSY.
7
The three remaining TAC options are increasingly cautious in terms of sustainability, but
are likely to have correspondingly greater socio-economic impacts.
8
Socio-economic impacts will be greatest under Option 4. MFish estimates that active fishers
that fish their own quota holdings could lose up to 15% of that portion of their income
derived from catching flatfish.
9
There is increased uncertainty around the socio-economic impact of Option 4, compared
with other options, as the Option 4 TACC will limit fisher’s ability to secure ACE. This
increased uncertainty may make this a less-preferred option.
10
Economic impacts will also vary depending on where commercial fishers fish within FLA 3.
Anecdotal information indicates that flatfish are more abundant in the southern part of the
fishery, and smaller fishing operations operating in the south are currently catching their
entire Annual catch Entitlement (ACE). Fishers in southern FLA 3 will need to purchase
ACE if they wish to continue to fish at their current level.
11
Non-commercial catch is relatively small for FLA 3, and proposed allowances are less 16%
of the TAC under all options. Nevertheless, MFish has included additional options (Option
3b and Option 4b) in the final list of options to allow you to consider whether to
proportionally reduce the recreational allowances on the same basis as the TACC.
12
Any decision that you make in this FLA 3 fishery should have regard to the decision that
you make in the RCO 3 fishery since the outcome of that paper is likely to impact on the
FLA 3 fishery as well. This is of particular relevance in a mixed inshore trawl fishery.
The Issue
13
Available information suggests that flatfish recruitment and abundance in FLA 3 may be
declining.
14
The 2007 Plenary report noted that for FLA 3: “The sizes of the populations depend heavily
on the strength of the recruiting year classes and are, therefore, highly variable. For this
reason, a constant catch at the level of the current TACC is unlikely to be attainable or
sustainable, nor would it be likely to allow stocks to move towards a size that would support
the MSY.” The current landings and TACC are 40% and 170%, respectively, above the
level that is considered sustainable using indicative yield estimates based on the estimated
maximum constant yield (MCY).
254 of 397
15
Flatfish abundance is naturally variable and some commercial fishers are concerned that a
lower TACC will limit their ability to access fish in years of high abundance. MFish notes
that FLA 3 is listed on the Second Schedule of the Fisheries Act 1996, allowing the Minister
to increase the TAC (under s 13(7) of the Act) and the ACE (under s 68 of the Act) during
the fishing year. Although FLA 3 is listed on the Second Schedule of the Act there is no
decision rule developed that would allow the Minister to determine an in season increase to
the TACC in years of high abundance.
16
Recreational fishers participating in the MFish southern region Recreational Fishers Forum
are concerned about the sustainability of the current TACC. Forum members state they have
stopped fishing for flatfish because of the decreased abundance. Forum members consider
the current TACC is effectively denying them access to FLA 3.
17
Customary fishers have only taken 65% of the authorised FLA 3 catch over the last five
years. The information provided by the customary permits does not specify the reason for
not taking the catch that was authorised. In discussions at the Customary Regional Forums
around the South Island the reasons put forward all relate to the lack of abundance of
flatfish in the traditional areas.
18
Some commercial fishers are also of the view that the FLA 3 TACC is not sustainable.
Since 1983, the average landing of FLA 3 has been 1 772 tonnes. Commercial fishes are
concerned that the intensive fishing that has taken place in recent years is affecting the
sustainability of the stock.
19
MFish recognises that commercial fishers are not obliged to fully catch their catch
entitlements. Various reasons unrelated to abundance of the stock (for example market
demand or price) can affect how much flatfish fishers choose to take. However, the existing
TACC appears to be artificially high, given that it has never been caught. In addition, even
if current commercial catches are not contributing to declining recruitment, MFish considers
the possible decline in recruitment needs to be taken into account even if it is due to
environmental or climatic factors.
20
MFish notes that reducing the amount of unfished FLA 3 ACE may reduce competitive
fishing for FLA 3 and provide a framework for quota holders to obtain more value from the
FLA 3 stock.
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
21
The IPP proposed the following options:
255 of 397
Table 1: Proposed TAC (tonnes), TACC (tonnes) and allowances for FLA 3
Option 1
(TAC based on present TACC
+ allowances
Option 2
(TAC based on average catch
over last 15 years)
Option 3
(TAC based on average catch
over last 5 years)
Option 4
(TAC based on estimate of
MCY )
Proposed
TAC
(tonnes)
Customary
allowance
(tonnes)
Recreational
allowance
(tonnes)
Other sources of fishingrelated mortality
(tonnes)
Proposed
TACC
(tonnes)
2 893
5
150
57
2 681
1 974
5
150
39
1 780
1 617
5
150
32
1 430
980
5
150
20
805
•
Option 1 - TAC of 2 893 tonnes, with a TACC of 2 681 tonnes. This is, in effect, the status
quo TACC with additional allowances based on current catch estimates to create a TAC.
•
Option 2 - TAC of 1 974 tonnes, including a TACC of 1 780 tonnes. This TACC is the
commercial catch averaged over 15 years to account for any cyclical changes in flatfish
catches over time. For example, commercial catches have peaked twice in the last 20 years,
in 1988-89 and, again, between 1995 and 1998. The 15 year period incorporates the years
1995-96 to 1997-98 during which flatfish catches were substantially higher than in other
years. Other allowances are as per Option 1.
•
Option 3 - TAC of 1 617 tonnes. It uses the same estimates for customary and recreational
catch, and other sources of fishing-related mortality, as Option 2 but sets a lower TACC of
1 430 tonnes. This TACC is calculated from commercial catches over a different period,
the average of the last five years 2001-06.
•
Option 4 - TAC at 980 tonnes. This TAC is calculated from the indicative yield estimate of
MCY for FLA 3 in the Plenary report. It uses the same estimates for customary and
recreational catch, and other sources of fishing-related mortality as Option 2, but results in a
TACC of 805 tonnes. This is substantially lower than recent catches.
256 of 397
Final Proposal
1
The options available for consideration are:
EITHER
a)
Option 1 (status quo) – set a TAC of 2 893 tonnes for FLA 3 and
within that set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 150 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance of 57 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
leave the TACC unchanged at 2 681 tonnes.
OR
b)
Option 2 - set a TAC of 1 974 tonnes for FLA 3 and within that TAC
set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 150 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance of 39 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
reduce the TACC to 1 780 tonnes.
OR
c)
Option 3a - set a TAC of 1 617 tonnes for FLA 3 and within that TAC
set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 150 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance of 32 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
reduce the TACC to 1 430 tonnes.
OR
d)
Option 3b - set a TAC of 1 587 tonnes for FLA 3 and within that TAC
set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a reduced recreational allowance of 120 tonnes;
257 of 397
iii)
an allowance of 32 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
reduce the TACC to 1 430 tonnes.
OR
e)
Option 4a - set a TAC of 980 tonnes for FLA 3 and within that TAC
set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 150 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance of 20 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
reduce the TACC to 805 tonnes.
OR
f)
Option 4b - set a TAC of 897.5 tonnes for FLA 3 and within that TAC
set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a reduced recreational allowance of 67.5 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance of 20 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
reduce the TACC to 805 tonnes.
Consultation
22
Your decision on a TAC for FLA 3 is made under section 13(1) (with references to s
13(2)(b)) of the Act and, therefore, the consultation requirements of section 12 apply.
Further, in respect of your decision whether or not to adjust the TACC for FLA 3, the
consultation requirements set out in section 21(2) apply.
23
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of
those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the
aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Maori, environmental, commercial,
and recreational interests. Further, provision was made for the input and participation of
tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in the stock or an interest in the effects of
fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned, having particular regard to
Kaitiakitanga.
258 of 397
24
In addition to written requests for submissions on the IPP, MFish has discussed these
proposals at:
•
Iwi forums at Kaikoura, Canterbury, Araiteuru (Otago), Murihiku (Southland) and
Wharekauri/Rekohu (Chatham Islands)
•
The South Recreational Forum
•
A meeting with SeaFIC and South East Finfish Management Ltd.
Submissions Received
Submissions regarding this proposal were received from:
•
Araiteuru Customary Fisheries Regional Forum
•
Environment and Conservation Organizations of NZ Inc (ECO)
•
Graham Fraser, fisherman Taieri Mouth
•
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC)
•
Ngati Mutunga O Wharekauri Iwi Trust
•
Ocean Fisheries Ltd
•
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc.(Forest & Bird )
•
Sanford Ltd
•
South East Finfish Management Ltd (South East Finfish)
•
The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd (SeaFIC)
•
Talley’s Ltd ( Talley’s)
•
Tasman and Sounds Recreational Fisher’s Association (TASFISH).
MFish Discussion
25
Most submitters acknowledge that the TACC for FLA 3 is a problem that has to be
addressed.
26
SeaFIC, Ocean Fisheries, South East Finfish Management Ltd and Talley’s Ltd all
acknowledge that the TACC for FLA 3 needs addressing, but support the status quo
Option 1 and recommend various stakeholder initiatives as alternatives to TACC
reductions. These include:
•
providing economic data to support the fishery,
•
completing a characterisation of the fishery,
259 of 397
•
analysing CPUE,
•
working collaboratively with MFish on a specific fisheries plan, and
•
working with MFish to develop an in-season decision rule for a TACC
increase under Schedule 2 of the Act.
27
Graham Fraser quota owner and fisherman of Taieri Mouth submitted that he never had
a problem catching his quota. This is indicative of a north-south split in the health of the
fishery. Mr Fraser supports Option 1 as any reduction in TACC results in economic harm
to his business.
28
Some quota owners submitting in support of Option 1 also included a proposal to
withhold excess ACE from the fishery.
29
MFish notes there is a statutory obligation under section 13(2)(b) of the Act to set the
TAC at a level that enables a stock below a biomass of MSY to be restored to a level that
can produce MSY having regard to the interdependence of stocks, the biological
characteristics of the stock and any environmental conditions affecting the stock. When
exercising discretion as to the way and rate the stock is restored to this level the Minister
must have regard to social, cultural and economic factors he considers relevant. Shelving
(or withholding ACE) and other stakeholder initiatives may be used as a mechanism to
assist the way or rate at which the stock is restored to a level that can produce MSY.
However, they may not be used as an alternative to setting an appropriate TAC at the
appropriate level, as required by section 13 of the Act.
30
Sanford Ltd supports Option 2, which uses the average of the last 15 years commercial
catch to set a TACC. Sanford points out that this still leaves reasonable headroom for
utilisation during years of abundance. Sanford would also like management under s14 of
the Act to be considered. MFish considers there are arguments in favour of both section
13 and section 14 options, but that shifting to section 14 has not been consulted on in this
process. This issue can be reviewed during the development of a Fisheries Plan for the
Southern Inshore Finfishery, scheduled for 2008-09.
31
FLA 3 is on Schedule 2 of the Act, allowing in-season adjustment of the TAC (and
ACE). A research project to determine in-season TAC adjustment mechanisms has been
referred to the MFish Inshore Research Planning Group. This will be forwarded to the
MFish Research Co-ordinating Committee later this year to determine an in-season TAC
adjustment mechanism.
32
Option 3 was supported by ECO and Forest and Bird as both organisations considered
this option as a move toward MSY. A split of the TAC into separate species was also
promoted as a management tool. This, however, is beyond the scope of this paper and
can be reviewed during the development of a Fisheries Plan for the Southern Inshore
Finfishery.
33
Option 4 attracted support from NZRFC and TASFISH as both these organisations
believe that this option meets the requirements of Section 13 of the Act.
34
Recreational and customary allowances where commented on by Sanford, SeaFIC, South
East Finfish, and Talleys. These organisations believe that recreational and customary
260 of 397
allowances should be reduced proportionally to the TACC. MFish notes this issue was
discussed in the introduction to the IPP (see Para 108-115). MFish agrees that in the
context of a shared fishery, utilisation must mean the ability of all sectors to have a
reasonable opportunity to utilise the fishery. An over-generous allocation to one sector
may impede reasonable utilisation by other sectors and therefore may impede the proper
purpose of the Act. MFish notes that under all options, except Option 4, non-commercial
allowances make up less than 10% of the TAC. Under Option 4, they amount to 16% of
the TAC.
35
MFish would further comment that there are no fixed shares of the TAC allocated to each
sector in this fishery. The current review involves setting a TAC for all sectors based on
current catch. If the TACC was currently fully caught and a reduction was occurring,
then, the issue of reallocation to non-commercial could arise. This is not the case.
Nevertheless, MFish has included additional options (“Option 3b” and “Option 4b”) in
the final list of options for you to consider. These additional options proportionally
reduce the recreational allowance on the same basis as the TACCs; 20% reduction for
Option 3b and 55% reduction for Option 4b.
36
Recreational sector wellbeing in relation to FLA 3 fish stocks is hard to quantify. The
information provided in the Recreational fisher forums is that fishers are being denied
access to fish as they believe that the commercial sector has depleted stocks in certain
areas. The general belief is that this sector gains little value from this fishery as there are
very few fish for recreational fishers to catch.
37
Flatfish is also a species of customary significance. Pātiki (flounder) have traditionally
been a popular food source that could easily be caught by spear fishing. Customary
design patterns based on the flounder shape have been related to hospitality and being
able to provide abundant food. Localised depletion certainly lessens the value obtained
by customary fishers.
38
Ngati Mutunga O Wharekauri Iwi Trust supports a lowering of the TACC for FLA3
if research has shown that this is required to support the long term sustainability of these
fish stocks.
39
Customary allowances were discussed at the Araiteuru, Wharekauri/Rekohu,
Murihiku, Kaikorua and Canterbury Customary Fisheries Regional Forums. The
customary allowance was generally accepted with the acknowledgement that customary
catch was often taken as recreational take.
Rationale for Management Options
40
New Zealand flatfish species are believed to be fast growing, short-lived and prolific.
Most stocks in the QMS are managed under section 13. Section 14 provides an
alternative means for setting a TAC under certain circumstances where it would better
meet the purpose of the Act. As raised in submissions, there are arguments in favour of
both section 13 and section 14 options, however this issue is outside the scope of this
review. Management under section 14 is an option that can be investigated under the
Fisheries Plan for the Southern Inshore Finfishery, to be developed with stakeholders in
2009.
261 of 397
Assessment of Management Options
41
TAC options represent increasingly cautious steps in terms of sustainability, with
correspondingly greater socio-economic impacts.
42
Option 1, is the existing TACC, with additional allowances based on current catch
estimates. This option involves the greatest risk to stock sustainability, given that the
TACC has never been caught and the current stock status of FLA 3 is unknown. The
current plenary assessment for the stock is that, if it were fully caught, the existing
TACC is unlikely to move FLA 3 towards a level that could sustain MSY. Given this
statement, which has remained unchallenged in submissions on the IPP, it is unlikely that
this option will meet your requirement to set a TAC that maintains the FLA 3 stock at or
above the biomass that will support the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY).
43
Options 2 and 3 both propose to base the TAC on estimates of recent catches. The two
options differ in the period over which they estimate current commercial catch. Option 2
averages commercial catch over a fifteen year period. This option makes greater
provision for the natural variability of flatfish, and incorporates past years in which
commercial catches have been higher than at present. Option 2 allows fishers to cover
catch in most years and presents a lower sustainability risk than Option 1.
44
Option 3 averages commercial catches over the last five years. This option more closely
reflects historic low catches in the commercial fishery. Using the period of lower
average catch places more weight on a possible decline in flatfish abundance and
recruitment. Commercial catches have exceeded the TACC proposed under Option 3 in
most years. Option 3 is a more conservative option with respect to sustainability risk and
reduces the competitive nature of the present fishery. This option places a greater
constraint on commercial fishers in the mixed inshore trawl fishery. As FLA 3 is largely
a target fishery commercial fishers should be able to constrain their catches within the
TACC proposed under option 3.
45
Over the last three years, less than half the TACC has been caught. In addition, the
number of fishers and vessels operating in the fishery has declined. MFish considers that
options 2 and 3 will not overly constrain the ACE or quota price as ACE price only
increases as catch levels draw close to the amount of fish available.
46
Option 4 uses the estimate of MCY as a proxy for MSY. This option places the TACC
well below current and historic catch levels. This option removes the pressure on bycatch stocks and ends the open access nature of the present fishery. Option 4 is the most
conservative option with respect to sustainability risk. However , it also has the greatest
social and economic impact. The level of risk to the stock by harvesting the population at
the estimated MCY value cannot be determined.
47
Option 4 would set the TACC at less than the current catch level. In considering Option 4
MFish recommends that you note the increased deemed values proposed in the current
Deemed Value Review paper (Volume 4). Setting the appropriate deemed value for FLA
3 will be challenging given the number of species included in FLA 3 and the variable
price (between $1 and $5 per kilogram) received for landed fish.
48
Option 4 is likely to limit the ability of fishers to secure ACE and may drive the price of
both ACE and quota up. MFish does not know the extent to which this will impact on
262 of 397
local support businesses (eg, Licensed Fish Receivers), or the extent to which fishers
could shift effort outside FLA 3 to maintain their fishery.
49
The potential for ACE price to rise also raises the incentive to dump or “high grade” for
catch that is likely to attract the maximum value from processors. Higher ACE prices are
likely to narrow profit margins for operators purchasing ACE.
50
MFish notes the increased uncertainty over the social and economic impact of Option 4
may make this a less-preferred option.
51
Non-commercial catch is relatively small for FLA 3, and proposed non-commercial
allowances comprise less 16% or less under all options. Nevertheless, additional options
Option 3b and Option 4b have been included in the list of final options to proportionally
reduce recreationally allowances on the same basis as the TACC.
52
Table 1 provides a tabular summary of the costs and benefits of each option;
Table 1 Summary of cost and benefits associated with options 1 to 4
Option 1 Costs
Option 1 Benefits
•
Greatest risk that fishing exploitation leads to stock
biomass below BMSY in the future.
•
Ongoing utilisation at current level: landed value of
approximately $7.9 million, if TACC fully caught.
•
Possible depletion of individual species in certain areas
further limiting Recreational utilisation.
•
Continued management under an industry-driven structured
fishing plan, although efficacy of this plan not known.
•
In the case of over-exploitation, forgone future utilisation.
•
Continued collection of data.
Option 2 Costs
Option 2 Benefits
•
If TACC was fully caught, potential immediate landed
value loss of approximately $2.7 million although no loss
in current landed value.
•
Using average catches, Option 2 results in no loss in landed
value.
•
Possibly that some small vertically integrated fishing
operations will become un-viable due to uneconomic
catch packages.
•
Lower overall exploitation rate across the stock, which means
increased certainty over the long-term sustainability, less
potential pressure on limited by catch species.
•
An increase of 7% cost to fisherman who have to pay for
ACE to make up for reduction Based on average ACE
trades and 2006/2007 port prices.
•
Possibly less biological information collected.
Option 3 Costs
Option 3 Benefits
•
Immediate gross revenue loss greater than Option 2. If
TACC was fully caught, potential immediate landed
value loss of approximately $3.7 million.
•
Possibly that some small vertically integrated fishing
operations will become un-viable due to uneconomic
catch packages.
•
An increase of 9.9% cost to fisherman who have to pay
for ACE to make up for cut Based on average ACE
trades and 2006/2007 port prices.
•
Possibility of ACE prices rising as the ACE market is
more fully allocated.
•
Possibly less biological information collected.
•
Lower overall exploitation rate across the stock, which means
a greater certainty of the long-term sustainability, and longterm sustainable utilisation, of FLA 3.
Option 4 Costs
•
Option 4 Benefits
Immediate gross revenue loss greater than Option 3. If
•
Lower overall exploitation rate across the stock, which means
263 of 397
TACC was fully caught, potential immediate landed
value loss of approximately $5.5 million.
a greater certainty of the long-term sustainability, and longterm sustainable utilisation, of FLA 3.
•
An increase of 14.7% cost to fisherman who have to pay
for ACE to make up for cut Based on average ACE
trades and 2006/2007 port prices,
•
Possibility of ACE prices rising as the ACE market is
more fully allocated. Uncertain downstream economic
impacts.
•
Possibly less biological information collected.
53
As a simple summary list, the costs and benefits cannot be summed, or the costs netted
out against the benefits to derive the superior option. In general, there are unquantified
sustainability risks and benefits from each option, with more known (and to some degree
quantifiable) utilisation costs and benefits.
Conclusion
54
The 2007 Plenary for FLA 3 states that a constant catch at the level of the current TACC
is unlikely to be attainable or sustainable, nor would it be likely to allow the stock to
move towards a size that will support the MSY. MFish notes this TACC has never been
fully caught.
55
Given this statement, which has remained unchallenged in submissions on the IPP, it is
unlikely that a TAC based on the status quo TACC (Option 1 in the IPP) will meet your
requirement to set a TAC that maintains the FLA 3 stock at or above the biomass that
will support the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY).
56
The three remaining TAC options represent increasingly cautious steps in terms of
sustainability, with correspondingly greater socio-economic impacts. Active fishers that
fish their own quota holdings could lose between 7% and 15% of that portion of their
income derived from catching flatfish.
57
Socio-economic impacts will be greatest and also more uncertain under Option 4, as the
TACC set under this option will limit fisher’s ability to secure ACE. This uncertainty
may make Option 4 a less-preferred option.
58
While non-commercial catch is relatively small for FLA3, additional options (Option 3b
and 4b) have been included that proportionally reduce recreationally allowances on the
same basis as the TACC.
264 of 397
Statutory Considerations
59
The following statutory considerations have been taken into account when forming
the management options for FLA 3:
a)
The purpose of the Act (as provided in s 8) is to provide for the use of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability. Because information about flatfish
abundance is uncertain, MFish has provided four options that could be consistent
with the Act’s purpose. Utilisation is provided by way of setting allowances for
commercial, recreational and customary fishers.
b)
All the options proposed rely on section 13(2)(b) to set the TAC, to enable the stock
to be restored to or above a level that can produce MSY. As noted, there is
uncertainty about where FLA 3 is in relation to the level that can produce the MSY.
Because of this uncertainty, four TAC options are proposed. MFish considers, on
the information available, that options 2, 3 and 4 are more likely to restore or move
the stock towards a level that can support MSY.
c)
The proposed TAC options have also taken into account the following factors:
i)
Flatfish stocks may vary from year to year because they are affected by
environmental conditions. However, specific environmental conditions have
not been identified that would affect the movement of the stock towards a level
that will support the MSY (s 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Act).
ii)
The biological characteristics of flatfish have been considered when proposing
options for the TAC (s 13(2)(b)(ii)).
iii)
Most flatfish is caught in target bottom trawl fisheries that catch a range of
bycatch. Small quantities of flatfish are caught as bycatch in other inshore
fisheries. Section 13(2) notes that, when setting a TAC, the Minister shall have
regard to the interdependence of stocks. There is no biological information to
suggest that the interdependence of stocks should affect the level of the TAC
set for FLA 3 at this time.
d)
Social and economic consequences are a relevant factor when the Minister considers
the way in which and rate at which a stock is moved towards or above a level that
can produce the MSY (s 13(3)). MFish has identified differing social and economic
consequences of altering the TAC and TACC under each of the four options.
e)
Section 11(1)(a) requires the Minister to take account of any effects of fishing on
any stock and the aquatic environment. Given that the recommended options
proposed are a reduction in the TACC, there is a potential for less fishing pressure
therefore the effects on the stock from fishing will be reduced.
f)
Natural variability of the stock is a mandatory consideration when setting or altering
a sustainability measure such as a TAC (s 11(1)(c)). This factor has been taken into
account when choosing the periods over which to calculate average commercial
catch.
g)
Section 9 sets out some environmental principles that must be taken into account
265 of 397
when setting or altering sustainability measures:
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.
h)
The options proposed here are unlikely to lead to increased catches, or an expansion
of fishing effort into previously unfished areas. All options are, therefore, considered
to adequately take into account these environmental principles).
i)
Associated or dependent species (s 9a) are any non-harvested species – such as
seabirds or marine mammals – that are affected by the taking of any harvested
species. There have been instances on the South Island east coast where endangered
Hector’s dolphins have been caught in commercial and non-commercial set nets and
in commercial trawl nets. To manage this risk, set netting has been controlled by
codes of practice and regulation in areas of concern on the coast within FLA 3.
There have been reports of Hectors’s dolphin sightings in some east coast harbours
and estuaries where set netting for flatfish sometime occurs. The proposed TAC
options will not result in set net effort increasing in areas where Hectors’s dolphins
may be found.
j)
Maintenance of the biological diversity of the aquatic environment also needs to be
considered (s 9(b)). Likewise, s 9(c) concerns the protection of habitat of particular
significance for fisheries management. Because no increase in fishing effort is
anticipated, it is not expected that the proposed TAC options would have any
additional impact on biological diversity or significant habitats.
k)
A wide range of international obligations relate to fishing, including use and
sustainability of fishstocks; and maintaining biodiversity (s 5(a)). MFish considers
that the management options for FLA 3 are consistent with these international
obligations.
l)
The existing control measures are the present fishing regulations and appropriate
deemed value controls. These have been considered when making recommendations
for any change to measures used to control the FLA 3 fishery (as outlined in
s 11(1)(b)).
m)
No relevant fisheries plan has been approved that requires consideration under
s 11(2A)(b) of the Act.
n)
This paper has considered whether there are any relevant conservation services or
fisheries services (as outlined in s 11(2A)(a and c)). No suggestion is made at this
stage to alter any decision about whether such services are required. However,
MFish does consider that some further research to update the catch per unit effort
analysis for FLA 3 is required and project FLA 2007-01 will be carried out in 20072008.
o)
There are no known relevant provisions concerning the coastal marine area in any
266 of 397
policy statement or plan under the Resource Management Act 1991, or any
management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1987 (as outlined in
s 11(2)(a) and (b) of the Fisheries Act).
p)
Section 11(2)(c) requires the Minister to have particular regard to ss 7 & 8 of the
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. FLA3 stock are not within the Hauraki Gulf
Marine Park area.
q)
Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005: In recognition
of the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area's local, national, and
international importance, unique marine environment, distinctive biological
diversity, and outstanding landscape and cultural heritage, the Government passed
the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005 (the 2005
Act). The Fiordland Marine Area is within the FLA 3 QMA.
r)
The 2005 Act states in s 26 that all management agencies exercising powers or
carrying out functions in the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area must
take into account any advice or recommendations provided by the Guardians (this
includes powers and functions under the Fisheries Act 1996).
s)
MFish sought comment from the Guardians but has not received a submission.
t)
The nature of the fishery and the interests of each fishing sector have been
considered in proposing the TACC and allowances for recreational and customary
interests and other sources of fishing-related mortality (sections 21(1)(a and b),
21(4)(i and ii) and 21(5)). There are currently three mätaitai reserves within FLA 3.
Areas have been closed for customary fishing purposes in FLA 3, but the closures do
not affect flatfish fisheries. There is no taking of commercial fish in the internal
waters of Fiordland - introduced in 2005 as part of the Fiordland Marine
Management Strategy to reduce fishing pressure in this area.
u)
Section 10 sets out information principles that are to be taken into account when
setting TACs.
v)
MFish has used the surveys of recreational fishing in 1999-00 and 2000-01 as the
basis for estimates of recreational catch in FLA 3. Limitations are acknowledged
with the use of these surveys. However, in the absence of other information on
recreational catches, the surveys are nonetheless considered to provide the best
available information.
w)
Customary information was sourced from the customary catch details data base held
by Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu. This data base is a summary of all the customary
permits issues by Ngai Tahu Tangata kaitiaki since 1998.
x)
All commercial information was sourced through MFish records of catch landing
returns contained in the FishServe databases.
y)
Sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b); and 21(4)(i) and 21(4)(ii); and 21(5). The nature of
the fishery and the interests of the respective fishing sectors have been considered in
setting the TACC and allowances for recreational and customary interests and all
other mortality to the stock caused by fishing.
267 of 397
z)
Mātaitai Reserves to date. Mätaitai reserves have been established in the FLA 3 area
at Rapaki Bay and Koukourārata (Port Levy) in Banks Peninsula waters, and in
Paterson Inlet (Te Whāka a Te Wera). Bylaws prevent skate from being taken in the
Rapaki Mātaitai Reserve and there are additional restrictions on the taking of FLA 3
stocks in the Te Whāka a Te Wera Mātaitai Reserve.
aa)
Taiāpure-Local Fisheries. Taiāpure-local fisheries have been established in Akaroa
Harbour on Banks Peninsula, and East Otago just north of Otago Peninsula. A
committee has been appointed for the East Otago Taiāpure-local fishery, and a
committee is in the process of being established for Akaroa Harbour.
bb)
Temporary Closures No temporary closures apply to areas where FLA 3 stocks are
likely to occur
cc)
Deed of Settlement In 1998, The Deed of Settlement between Ngāi Tahu and the
Crown settled grievances associated with the Crowns failure to act in good faith in
relation to land purchase agreements in the 1800s. The Dead of Settlement was
given effect by the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.
dd)
Of relevance to the FLA 3 was the decision to vest the ownership of the bed of
Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere) to Ngāi Tahu. No FLA 3 species/stocks are listed as
taonga species or “non-commercially harvested species” under the Ngāi Tahu
Claims Settlement Act.
Other Management Issues
60
MFish intends to begin working with Tangata Whenua and stakeholders on a Fisheries
Plan for the southern finfish stocks in 2008-09. Other flatfish management issues, such
as managing flatfish under section 14, managing eight species as one stock complex, and
the use of improved technology to improve reporting would best be investigated within
the context of this plan.
61
A submission from Ngati Mutunga O Wharekauri Iwi trust on the Chatham Islands
discussed the establishment of a separate Wharekauri/Chatham Fisheries Management
Area, and the desire for the local iwi and community to establish a flat fishery in this
area. MFish will be working with Tangata Whenua and stakeholders on Fisheries Plans
for both Southeast finfish and the Chatham Islands in the next few years. These will be
the forums in which to discuss these initiatives as they are outside the scope of this paper.
62
Within the submissions on FLA3 TAC, a set net ban was proposed by Forest and Bird.
Such a ban is outside the scope of this paper but MFish notes that less than 2% of the
FLA 3 catch is taken by set netting.
63
The submission from TASFISH detailed concerns about issues in FLA7. These issues are
also outside the scope of this paper.
268 of 397
269 of 397
RED COD (RCO 3) – FINAL ADVICE
Figure 1: Quota Management Areas (QMA) Red cod (RCO 3)
Executive Summary
1
You are required to make a decision on the appropriate Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and
allocations for the RCO 3 fishery. A TAC and other allowances have not yet been set for
RCO 3.
2
An Initial Position Paper (IPP) released 19 June 2007 proposed four TAC options for RCO
3.
3
The review was initiated to address sustainability concerns expressed to you by a number of
fishers at a meeting in Timaru and, subsequently, all fishery sectors raised anecdotal
concerns about the sustainability and utilisation of RCO 3 stocks off the east coast of the
South Island.
4
Commercial landings have declined substantially since the mid 1990s and recreational
fishers consider they no longer have access to valued local fisheries.
5
Red cod is a key target species within a complex of fished species in the Southern Inshore
(trawl) Finfish Fishery (SIF fishery). Fishers target their operations around the inter-annual
variation in the abundance of the species that make up this fishery complex. RCO 3 is a
very large QMA covering FMAs 3, 4, 5 and 6.
6
Red cod are highly fecund and recruitment is strongly mediated by environmental
conditions. Thus, the annual abundance of red cod varies significantly. The TACC for
RCO 3 has been set at historically high catch levels to enable fishers to take advantage of
years of high abundance. MFish believes that the RCO 3 fishery requires a review of the
270 of 397
assumption that the fishery be managed at a level that is independent of biomass (because of
the life history of red cod).
7
Red cod is listed on the Second Schedule of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act). Inclusion on
the Second Schedule allows for an increase to the TAC within a fishing year.
8
Available information on red cod on the east coast South Island lends itself to using the
Second Schedule. An analysis of the recruitment-environment relationship shows there is a
strong correlation between recruitment and environmental variables, with a 14 month lag.
Further, the east coast South Island winter trawl survey has recommenced this year and
should be able to provide fishery independent information on the relative abundance of year
class strength and recruitment into the fishery. This information may allow for the
development of a decision rule to give effect to within season TAC increases.
9
The red cod fishery is highly dependent on recruitment success and is based almost
exclusively on two and three year old fish. Red cod live to six years of age.
10
Recruitment appears to have failed or not been significant for the past seven years. All
indicators show the fishery at a very low level. This year’s catch is anticipated to be less
than 15% of the TACC. The recent east coast South Island trawl survey (May 2007) results
put the relative biomass at 40% of the previous lowest biomass estimate. More importantly,
the survey has not revealed any recruitment pulse which, if correct, means there is little
likelihood of an improvement in the fishery for the next two to three years. Continued
fishing pressure may further reduce spawning stock abundance.
11
MFish is concerned that, on current available information, the RCO 3 biomass is below
maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and requires rebuilding to a level that will support the
MSY.
12
The most recent stock assessment (2001) is largely based on data which is now nine years
old and which had followed an extended period of high landings. This information is now
out of date and is unlikely to apply to the fishery in its current situation.
13
Nevertheless, the Plenary considered that, if fully caught, the existing TACC is unlikely to
be attainable or sustainable. Given this statement, which has remained unchallenged in
submissions, it is unlikely that the status quo (Option 1) will meet your requirement to set a
TAC that maintains a stock at or above the biomass that will support the maximum
sustainable yield (BMSY).
14
The three remaining proposed TAC options represent increasingly cautious degrees of
sustainability risk, with correspondingly greater socio-economic impacts. At the current
port price and cost of Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE), active fishers that fish their own
quota holdings are unlikely to sustain losses above 10% on that portion of their income
derived from catching red cod.
15
In addition, the current substantial disparity, between biomass available to be caught and
available ACE, may contribute to a number of anomalies and inefficiencies in the fishery.
The disparity can also influence the ACE market.
16
The South-east Finfish Management Co, the relevant Commercial Stakeholder
Organisation, and SeaFIC, have submitted that explicit consideration be given to quota
271 of 397
owner management initiatives to maintain a high overhead in the TACC but to manage ACE
by shelving during periods of low abundance.
17
While this proposal in itself is an excellent initiative, it does not absolve you from setting a
TAC that will move the stock to a level that can produce MSY.
18
The South-east Finfish Management Co, SeaFIC and other quota holders also submit that
they strongly support a proportional allocation process. MFish notes that allowing for all
non-commercial extraction under any of the proposed TAC options amounts to less than 4%
of the TAC and that the proposed non-commercial allowances are unlikely to have a
substantial material impact. Recreational fishers equally strongly believe that the noncommercial catch has not contributed to the current state of the fishery. Under option 4, a
reduced daily bag limit is proposed at the request of local recreational fishers, with a
corresponding reduced recreational allowance.
19
Nevertheless, should you consider proportional allocation appropriate to give effect to
providing for social, economic and cultural wellbeing, alternative options are provided.
20
MFish does not consider the quantities provided for recreational catch impact materially on
the commercial harvest of RCO 3, and, that in the Canterbury region, and Banks Peninsula
in particular, “Akaroa cod” is a defining commercial and recreational species.
21
Any decision you may make in regard to RCO 3 should be made with reference to any
decision you may make in regard to the TAC review for FLA 3 which is also before you at
this time. This is of particular relevance as both RCO 3 and FLA 3 are components of a
mixed inshore trawl fishery.
The Issue
22
You requested a review of the RCO 3 TAC following a meeting with commercial fishers at
Timaru in 2006. Currently, there is no TAC set for this fishery. The fishery has a Total
Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) of 12 395.702 t. Under s.13 you are required to set a
TAC.
23
Red cod is a key target species within a complex of fished species in the Southern Inshore
(trawl) Finfish Fishery (SIF fishery). Fishers target their operations around the inter-annual
variation in the abundance of the species that make up this fishery complex.
24
Anecdotal information from all fishery sectors has raised concerns about the sustainability
and utilisation of RCO 3 stocks off the east coast of the South Island. Commercial landings
have declined substantially since the mid 1990s and recreational fishers consider some
valuable local fisheries are lost.
25
You asked the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) to review RCO 3 catch limits in response to
these concerns. MFish believes that, on current available information, the RCO 3 biomass
is below BMSY and requires rebuilding to a level that will support the MSY.
26
The most recent stock assessment (2001) is largely based on data which is now nine years
old and which had followed an extended period of high landings and is now out of date.
Nevertheless, the Plenary considered that, if fully caught, the existing TACC is unlikely to
move RCO 3 towards a level that could support the MSY.
272 of 397
27
Red cod abundance is naturally variable (in response to environmental variables) but the
length and magnitude of the decline in commercial landings (anticipated to be in the order
of 15% of the TACC this year) indicates fishing pressure may have significantly reduced
spawning stock abundance.
28
The May 2007 east coast South Island winter trawl survey has been completed and biomass
estimates for red cod are 40% of the previous lowest estimate in 1991. 73
29
Further, the RCO 7 fishery has historically mirrored the RCO 3 fishery, however, for the
last three years, including the current year, the RCO 7 TACC has been 98% caught.
30
Therefore, MFish believes that the current situation requires a review of the assumption
that, because of the life history of red cod and the inter-annual variability of the biomass, the
fishery be managed at a level that is independent of biomass.
31
Red cod is listed on the Second Schedule of the Act. Inclusion on the Second Schedule
allows for an increase to the TAC within a fishing year via s.13(7) of the Act.
32
An analysis of the red cod recruitment-environment relationship shows there is a
demonstrated strong correlation between recruitment and environmental variables, with a 14
month lag. Further, the east coast South Island winter trawl survey has recommenced this
winter and will be able, in future years, to provide fishery independent information on the
relative abundance of year class strength and recruitment into the fishery.
73
The results need to be considered preliminary as the survey report has not been before the Working Group.
273 of 397
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
33
The IPP proposed the following options:
Table 2: The proposed TAC (tonnes), TACC (tonnes) and allowances for RCO 3 for the 2007-08 fishing year
Option 1
(Proxy for
Status quo)
Option 2
(TAC based on
25% reduction)
Option 3
(TAC based on
average catch
over last 20
years)
Option 4
(TAC based on
average catch
over last 5
years)
Proposed
TAC
(tonnes)
Customary
allowance
(tonnes)
Recreational
allowance
(tonnes)
Other sources of
fishing-related
mortality (tonnes)
Proposed TACC
(tonnes)
13 299
5
280
618
12 396
9 735
5
280
450
9 000
7 635
5
280
350
7 000
4 930
5
95
230
4 600
34
All options are based on RCO 3 being on the Second Schedule of the Act and, therefore,
open to within fishing year TAC increases:
•
Option 1 – A proxy status quo. This option is based on the 2001 Plenary report that the
stock is above BMSY, but does not take account of the age of the assessment, additional
information or the Plenary comment on the sustainability of the TACC. This option
incorporates estimates of recreational catch, customary catch and other sources of
fishing-related mortality as a constant factor during the period without a TAC and
estimates have been added to the TACC;
•
Option 2 -. TAC is based around a 25% reduction to the TACC to move the TAC
towards BMSY, as the Plenary considered that, if fully caught, the existing TACC is
unlikely to move RCO 3 towards a level that could sustain the MSY. The TAC also
incorporates estimates of recreational catch, customary catch and other sources of
fishing-related mortality;
•
Option 3 – TAC based on the most recent 20-year average of commercial catches, plus
estimates of recreational catch, customary catches and other sources of fishing-related
mortality;
•
Option 4 - TAC based on the most recent 5-year average of commercial catches, plus
estimates of recreational catch, customary catch and other sources of fishing-related
mortality.
274 of 397
Final Proposal
The options available for consideration are:
EITHER
a)
Option 1 - set a TAC of 13 299 tonnes for RCO 3 and within that
TAC set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 280 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance of 618 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
a TACC of 12 396 tonnes.
OR
b)
Option 2a - set a TAC of 9 735 tonnes for RCO 3 and within that
TAC set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 280 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance of 450 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
a TACC of 9000 tonnes.
OR
c)
Option 2b - set a TAC of 9 658 tonnes for RCO 3 and within that
TAC set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 203 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance of 450 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
a TACC of 9000 tonnes.
OR
d)
Option 3a - set a TAC of 7 635 tonnes for RCO 3 and within that
TAC set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 280 tonnes;
275 of 397
iii)
an allowance of 350 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
a TACC of 7 000 tonnes.
OR
e)
Option 3b - set a TAC of 7 513 tonnes for RCO 3 and within that
TAC set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 158 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance of 350 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
a TACC of 7 000 tonnes.
OR
f)
Option 4 - set a TAC of 4 930 tonnes for RCO 3 and within that TAC
set:
i)
a customary allowance of 5 tonnes;
ii)
a recreational allowance of 95 tonnes;
iii)
an allowance of 230 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related
mortality; and
iv)
a TACC of 4 600 tonnes.
v)
Reduce the red cod recreational daily bag limit in FMAs 3 & 5
from 30 to 10 per day.
Consultation
35
Your decision whether or not to adjust the TAC/TACC for RCO 3 is a decision under
s.13(1) and 13(2)(b) of the Act and, therefore, the consultation requirements of s.12 apply.
36
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of
those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the
aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Maori, environmental, commercial,
and recreational interests. Further, provision was made for the input and participation of
tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in the stock or an interest in the effects of
fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned, having particular regard to
Kaitiakitanga.
37
MFish has undertaken specific consultation with customary forums, recreational advisory
forums and has met with the South-east Finfish Management Company and SeaFIC.
276 of 397
Submissions Received
38
Submissions regarding the proposed options were received from:
•
Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Inc. (ECO)
•
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC)
•
Ocean Fisheries Limited and Ocean Fisheries Quota Holding Company Limited. (Ocean
Fisheries)
•
Sanford Limited (Sanford)
•
South East Finfish Management Limited (SE Finfish)
•
Talleys Group Limited (TGL)
•
The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Limited (SeaFIC)
MFish Discussion
39
Ocean Fisheries Limited and Ocean Fisheries Quota Holding Company Limited,
Talleys Group Limited. and The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Limited.
support Option 1.
40
The South East Finfish Management Limited submission supports Option 1, however,
SE Finfish notes that there is mixed opinion within the SE Finfish shareholders. The views
as to the actions that should be taken to address the concerns in the fishery are varied.
41
Sanford Limited supports Option 2.
42
Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Inc. and the New
Zealand Recreational Fishing Council support Option 4.
43
In general, the submitters that favour Option 1 acknowledge there are problems or concerns
with the fishery, but consider that setting a TAC to significantly reduce the current TACC is
pre-emptive. Some submit the low catch is a consequence of the natural variability in
abundance of red cod. SE Finfish notes there is general consensus that there needs to be
adjustment to the TACC, however, the question is whether these concerns are sufficiently
urgent to require immediate action. Other submitters see no reason to adjust the TACC at
all.
44
Sanford supports a reduction of the TACC by 25%, which is option 2 of the IPP. Sanford
submits this option will ensure sustainability, whilst providing for utilisation during years of
high abundance without restricting harvest levels during these periods. It will also reduce
unnecessary levy costs on quota share owners under lower abundance and utilisation cycles.
45
Sanford supports the continued setting of “headroom” TACCs in these highly variable
stocks to allow for harvest utilisation during years of high abundance.
277 of 397
46
ECO submits the TACC should be reduced to the average catch of the last 5 years as a
move towards the MCY estimate.
47
NZRFC supports Option 4 but with the following changes; the recreational allowance is
increased from 95 t to 195 t, the recreational daily bag limit is increased from the proposed
10 to 15, and the TACC is set at 4 500 t. The current bag limit is 30.
48
NZRFC submits this reduction in catch effort will also address impacts on:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Associated fisheries
Associated or dependent species
Maintenance of biological diversity of the aquatic environment
Protection of habitat of particular significance for fisheries management.
49
NZRFC agrees that the reported catches for RCO 3 have shown an alarming decline in
recent years. As red cod are a relatively short lived species, NZRFC submits that all catch
history more than 8 years old should be put aside when future catch allowance decisions are
being made. A conservative catch limit should be set to allow the stocks to recover. As
RCO 3 is on the Second Schedule, if a rapid increase in availability is seen, further ACE can
be created at short notice.
50
NZRFC also submits that in addition to a significant reduction in TACC, those areas known
to be predominately occupied by juvenile red cod must be protected.
51
As outlined in the IPP, MFish believes that, on current available information, the RCO 3
biomass is likely to be below BMSY. MFish notes the Plenary assessment that a constant
catch at the level of the existing TACC is unlikely to be attainable or sustainable in most
years. and that you are obliged to rebuild the fishery to a level that will support the MSY.
MFish also believes that the current state of the fishery raises the issue of the importance of
both environmental factors and the size of the spawning stock in determining the
productivity of this population.
52
MFish concern arises from the low numbers of older fish in the fishery. The Plenary cites
that in the monitored 1989-90 to 1992-93 fishing years, 80% of landings were 2+ and 3+
fish, which indicates fish are being caught before attaining these older ages. Data from the
Plenary document also indicate the fishery may be catching a preponderance of breeding
females (F:M 3.4:1) during the November to May peak of the fishery.
53
Given current landings (as an indicator of current biomass) also suggest the available
spawning stock may be low, a more conservative approach to management may be prudent.
Future recruitment pulses may be smaller and there may be a need to protect the stock to
allow the population to re- generate a significant pulse of recruitment.
54
Even with the assumption that red cod stocks can respond positively from a low biomass,
recent landings data reflect a trend of declining abundance and recruitment in RCO 3.
55
This assessment is supported by the most recently available information (subsequent to the
release of the IPP) from the east coast South Island winter trawl survey (May 2007). The
survey results estimate relative abundance at 40% of the previous lowest estimate (1991)
with no indication of any recruitment pulse. Based on this information, it would appear
unlikely there will be a significant response from the fishery for perhaps two or three years.
278 of 397
Should this low biomass continue to be fished hard during these years, then any meaningful
recruitment pulse may be significantly delayed.
56
MFish believes there is sufficient information to support a degree of caution in the
management strategy taken with the fishery.
Fisheries Plan
57
Some submitters supporting Option 1 consider that, because RCO 3 covers FMAs 3, 4, 5
and 6 and that red cod is a component of a complex of species, the IPP lacked clear problem
definition. These submitters support any TACC change being progressed through the
Fisheries Plan process following appropriate research and a “characterisation” of the SIF
fishery. These submitters consider all issues, including any TAC adjustments, should be
agreed between stakeholders via a Fishery Plan that might also include alternative quota
owner management measures such as withholding excess ACE (shelving) during periods of
low abundance, closing juvenile grounds, mesh sizes and rotational closures.
58
The NZRFC also believes a partnership approach needs to be taken by way of a Fishery
Plan but submits that recreational fishers are not resourced well enough to participate
effectively in the plan process. NZRFC, therefore, submits that, until such time as these
resourcing issues have been addressed, MFish reduce commercial landings to ensure the
RCO 3 fishery moves to a stock level that will support MSY.
59
SE Finfish, as the commercial stakeholder organisation responsible, in support of Option 1,
submits it is willing to:
60
a)
Provide economic data to support the fishery
b)
Undertake a characterisation of RCO 3 fishery including CPUE analysis
c)
Confirm its willingness to engage collaboratively with MFish to develop a SIF
Fisheries Plan as agreed by the SE Finfish Board in a meeting with MFish
Operations South in February 2007 as a priority
d)
Promote the change in management from s.13 to s.14 of the Act
e)
Develop, in conjunction with MFish, robust decision rules for in-season TACC
increases that occur in a timely manner so as to provide benefit in times of high
stock abundance under Schedule 2 of the Act
f)
Seek a negotiated TACC reduction to more manageable levels in 2008 provided that
all of above have been achieved.
g)
Support the development and implementation of a hybrid trawl survey through the
Inshore Fisheries Assessment Working Group and the Inshore Research Planning
Group/Coordination Committee process that is specifically designed to meet the
research needs of the south east inshore fisheries.
MFish agrees that RCO 3 is a very large QMA containing a number of inter-connected
fisheries with attendant complexity of issues. And, that a fishery plan is an appropriate
vehicle to address SIF fishery issues to obtain better value from the fishery. However,
MFish notes that it is the Minister of Fisheries who is responsible for making TAC
decisions. Further, if you delay until after research, completion of a “characterisation” of
the fishery and fishery plan development, any resolution is likely to be four or five years
hence.
279 of 397
Stakeholder Management Initiatives
61
Several submitters, including SeaFIC, consider that the FAP should give explicit
consideration to the alternative approach of retaining a relatively high TACC and relying on
the actions of quota owners to set aside ACE in years of lower abundance (ie shelving).
62
MFish’s position is that you have a statutory obligation to set the TAC at a level that
enables a stock below BMSY to be restored to a level that can produce MSY. The Minister
has discretion as to the way and rate the stock is restored to this level. Shelving may be
used as a mechanism to assist the way or rate the stock is restored to a level that can
produce MSY. However, it may not be used as an alternative to setting the TAC at the
appropriate level as required by section 13 of the Act. As noted above, MFish believes that
based on current information the RCO 3 biomass is below that which can produce MSY and
requires rebuilding.
Economic Considerations
63
SE Finfish submits that the lower the TAC proposal, the greater the economic impact will
be for the majority of RCO 3 quota holders who have small holdings that meet their needs
for fishing under the current TACC level. The more severe each IPP proposal becomes the
greater the loss of asset each of these smaller shareholders will suffer and the less ACE
overhead that will be available for them to purchase to cover their catches at the new and
lower TACC. A project to review the economics of these fisheries should be commissioned
as soon as possible.
64
MFish notes that the structure of quota holdings in the RCO 3 fishery determines that the
fishery is largely an ACE fishery. Under current catch all options are likely to have
available ACE for the next two or three years. The top five quota holders hold 78% of the
TACC. The top ten quota holders hold 91.5% of the TACC. Out of 86 quota holders, the
bottom 54 hold only 1% in total of the TACC.
65
Of those quota holders that do also fish for RCO 3, based on a port price of $0.54 and an
ACE price of $0.073 being a differential of 13.5%, those fishers will undergo a 3.375% loss
of income from the red cod component of their catch under a 25% reduction in the TACC as
in option 2. Option 3 represents a 44% reduction of the TACC which equates to a 6%
reduction in income derived from red cod and, option 4 represents a 63% reduction in the
TACC which equates to an 8.5% reduction in income derived from red cod.
66
MFish acknowledges that there is a possibility of an increase in ACE price if the TACC is
reduced significantly, however, MFish note that at current catch levels there will still be
significant unused ACE under all TAC options proposed. Further, there are indications that
the catch level may not improve significantly within the next two or three years.
Management Under Section 14
67
Submitters favouring Option 1 and Sanford generally support a change of management for
RCO 3 from under s.13 to s.14 of the Act.
68
MFish considers that this measure was not consulted on in the IPP and as such is beyond the
scope of this FAP. MFish notes that S 14(8)(b) of the Act sets out the criteria for inclusion
on the Third Schedule of the Act, and that the management strategy for RCO 3 (including
the appropriateness of s.14) will be considered as part of a Fisheries Plan for the SIF fishery.
280 of 397
Second Schedule
69
70
Submitters in favour of Option 1 also expressed concern about the use of red cod Second
Schedule status as a mechanism to facilitate within season TACC increases during years of
high abundance, citing:
•
what research is required to support an in-season increase, and at what cost?
•
what is the likelihood of actually obtaining in-season increases, given other MFish
regulatory priorities?
•
to what extent might the uncertain policy framework for the allocation of shared
fisheries impact on the ability to secure an in-season increase for RCO 3?
•
what is the ongoing cost to quota owners of the uncertainty around whether or not an
in-season increase is obtained?
MFish considers these concerns to be unfounded. A research proposal is proposed for
discussion at the Research Co-ordinating Committee to establish an appropriate “decision
rule” based on the available information which could include year class strength data from
the east coast South Island winter trawl survey and the established recruitment-environment
relationship for east coast South Island red cod. This information is likely to be available
within 18 months. MFish currently operates a number of pre-season assessments for some
shellfish fisheries without issue. Further, MFish believes that, based on the results of the
east coast South Island winter trawl survey, the need for such an in-season increase is highly
unlikely in the immediate foreseeable future.
Allocation
71
The commercial stakeholder organisations and quota holders strongly submit that the
quantities proposed to allow for non-commercial fishing in Options 2, 3 and 4 amount to a
re-allocation of property rights and that any TAC reduction should be proportional.
72
The NZRFC submits it is keen to see a rebuild in the RCO 3 fishery but doesn’t accept that
the amateur sector has played any significant part in fishing red cod down to the present low
levels.
73
NZRFC submits that often the lack of accessible fish for amateurs in RCO 3 is as the result
of localised depletion caused by excessive commercial fishing pressure. Given the poor
state of this fishery for several years, amateurs have effectively been denied access to a
reasonable daily bag and in many instances have given up trying due to the lack of available
fish.
74
NZRFC suggests that if management measures are introduced to rebuild the fishery, that
amateur take, and subsequent allowance, be reassessed at five yearly intervals. This will
enable a more accurate assessment of the amateur catch to be built over time and enable [the
Minister] “to allow for” as prescribed in section 21 of the Act.
75
The NZRFC submits that correct management resulting in truly sustainable fisheries must
always be the goal.
281 of 397
76
MFish’s position on proportional allocation is set out in the Statutory Obligations and
Policy Guidelines section of the IPP, pages 24 and 25. MFish believe that in this instance
there is no reallocation of the TAC occurring. The current process is to set a TAC. If the
TACC were fully caught and a reduction to then occur, it might then be argued that there
was a reallocation to non-commercial, however, this is not the case in this instance.
Nevertheless, at the request of local recreational fishers, a reduced daily bag limit and
corresponding reduced recreational allowance is proposed in Option 4.
77
MFish notes that the percentages of the TAC options proposed to allow for recreational
fishing are 2.9%, 3.7% and 1.9% respectively.
78
MFish does not consider these quantities impact materially on the commercial harvest of
RCO 3, and, that in the Canterbury region, and Banks Peninsula in particular, “Akaroa cod”
is a defining commercial and recreational species. Red cod is not particularly valued in the
southern portion of the QMA.
79
MFish notes there has not been consultation on proportional allocation for RCO 3.
Rationale for Management Options
Biological characteristics
80
Red cod are a fast-growing, short-lived species with few fish in the commercial fishery
older than six years. Recruitment is highly variable resulting in large variations in catches
between years. To allow fishers to access stocks in years of high abundance, the TACC has
traditionally been set at the highest catch levels. This management approach assumes that
recruitment is effectively independent of biomass.
Stock status
81
The most recent stock assessment (2001) and estimates of biomass and sustainable catch are
largely based on data up to the end of the 1997-98 fishing year. The data used for this
assessment is now nine years old. MFish considers that this may no longer accurately
reflect the status of the fishery.
82
The Plenary considered that a constant catch at the TACC level of RCO 3 was not attainable
or sustainable in most years.
83
Two estimates of Maximum Constant Yield (MCY), using different methods, are available
and are 4 400 t and 7 000 t. Landings over the seven year period from the 1992-93 fishing
year until 1998-99 exceeded 8 000 t annually. Since that extended period of landings in
excess of MCY estimates, landings have averaged 4 600 t and declined to 3 222 t in the
2005-06 fishing year. Landings for the current fishing year are not expected to significantly
exceed 1 500 t.
84
The sex ratio of the RCO 3 commercial catch sampled during the period 1989-90 until
1992-93 was skewed towards females during November (ratio F:M 3.4:1) with the ratio
tending to even out by May. This implies that the fishery may be catching a predominance
of breeding females.
85
While red cod are very fecund (3 million eggs average), the fishery is based almost
282 of 397
exclusively on two and three year old fish and is highly dependent on recruitment success.
As recruitment appears to be strongly influenced by environmental factors, there is no
guarantee of a significant recruitment in the immediate term. Therefore, while the biomass
is significantly down, a more conservative approach to management may be prudent.
Future “average” recruitment pulses may be small because of the low biomass and there
may be a need to conserve the stock to allow the population to re-generate a significant
recruitment pulse.
86
Both commercial and recreational fishers have expressed concern at the continued decline in
the RCO 3 stock over the past seven years. This observation is supported by the results of
the recent east coast South Island trawl survey (May 2007) which gave estimates of relative
abundance that is only 40% of the previous lowest estimate (of six) and, which also did not
detect any evidence of a recruitment pulse. Given the fishery is dependent upon two and
three year old fish it is, therefore, unlikely there will be any improvement in the fishery for
two to three years. And, any possible improvement after that time is contingent upon a
highly successful recruitment this year. Fishing the stock hard during the next two years
may further reduce the spawning biomass.
Table 2. Estimated Biomass (t) from the east coast South Island winter trawl survey
Species
Year
Red cod
2007
Red cod
1996
Red cod
1994
Red cod
1993
Red cod
1992
Red cod
1991
* Catch to August
Estimate of Relative Biomass (t)
1 486
4 619
5 637
5 601
4 527
3 760
Catch (t)
1 650*
10 056
12 603
7 977
9 633
6 500
Existing catch limits
87
The total allowable commercial catch (TACC) is 12 396 t. No formal TACC amendment
has been made since 1986, which explains why no TAC is established.
88
The original TACC for RCO 3 was set at a high level, based on 1983 catch levels that were
the highest on record at that time. Since 1986, the TACC was increased from 9 000 t to 12
396 t by quota appeals. The TACC was intended to allow high levels of commercial catch
in years of high abundance. However, the TACC has only been caught three times over the
last 25 years and it is substantially above the level of current catches. The Plenary
concluded that if it were fully caught, the existing TACC is considered unlikely to move
RCO 3 towards a level that could sustain the MSY.
89
Given this, MFish considers it unlikely that a TAC incorporating the current TACC (as well
as allowances for recreational catch, customary catch and other sources of fishing-related
mortality) would move RCO 3 towards a level that would support the MSY. A TAC needs
to be set that is more likely to fulfil the obligation to move RCO 3 towards the level that can
produce the MSY.
90
MFish considers the decline in landings indicates the best value is not being achieved from
this fishery. MFish is also concerned that the high TACC set for RCO 3 means that, in most
years, fishers are competing for access to the available catch which may be causing over
283 of 397
capitalisation. In addition, the Plenary has identified bycatch and discarding issues within
the fishery.
91
The vast majority of red cod is caught by trawl. As RCO 3 is a component of the SIF
fishery, there are a number of QMS stocks that are taken as an unavoidable bycatch of
trawling for red cod. Section 13(2) notes that, when setting a TAC, the Minister shall have
regard to the interdependence of stocks. Changes in catch rates of red cod, combined with
the recovery of other quota species since the introduction of the QMS, have resulted in a
catch mix for which some fishers do not have the appropriate quota holdings. Bycatch
problems while targeting red cod are therefore common for stargazer, red gurnard, elephant
fish, rig, school shark, blue cod, groper and tarakihi.
92
MFish considers that the three lower proposed TAC options will move to alleviate bycatch
issues associated with the interdependence of stocks and the RCO 3 fishery.
93
Higher catches of bycatch species may lead to over-catching these stocks and possible
discarding as ACE for those stocks becomes more difficult to procure.
Other factors
94
As mentioned, the TACC for RCO 3 was set at the historical highest catch levels to allow
fishers to take advantage of high abundance years. This management strategy was set when
RCO 3 entered the QMS in 1986, prior to the current Act. MFish considers this historical
provision is no longer necessary to access catch during years of high abundance as red cod
is on the Second Schedule of the Act to allow for within-fishing-year TACC increases.
95
The Second Schedule can apply to any stock whose abundance may vary significantly from
year to year. For stocks listed on the Second Schedule, in years when the stock is
particularly abundant, the TAC can be increased during the fishing year. The aim of an inseason adjustment to the TAC is still to manage a stock at, or above, a level that can
produce the MSY.
96
Red cod on the east coast South Island lends itself to the provisions of the Second Schedule
as an analysis of the recruitment-environment relationship shows there is a strong
correlation between recruitment and environmental variables, with a periodic 14 month lag.
Further, the east coast South Island trawl survey has recommenced this winter and will be
able, in future years, to provide fishery independent information on relative abundance, year
class strength and recruitment into the fishery. This information may allow for the
development of a decision rule to give effect to within season TAC increases. A research
proposal to this effect is to be discussed at the Research Coordinating Committee in
October.
Assessment of Management Options
97
The Minister is obliged, under s.13(1) of the Act, to set a TAC for any stock under review
that does not yet have one. MFish considers that setting a TAC and, within it, allowing for
commercial and non-commercial fishing, is the best way of ensuring sustainable
management of this fishery.
98
MFish proposes to set the TAC for RCO 3 using s 13(1) of the Fisheries Act 1996.
284 of 397
99
Most stocks in the Quota Management System (QMS) are managed under s 13. Section 14
provides an alternative means for setting a TAC under certain circumstances, where it
would better meet the purpose of the Act. MFish considers that s 14 does not apply for
RCO 3 because:
a)
it is possible to estimate the MSY of the species;
b)
a catch limit for New Zealand has not been determined as part of an international
agreement;
c)
the stock is not managed on a rotational or enhanced basis; and
d)
the stock does not include one or more highly migratory species.
100
Under s.13 the Minister of Fisheries must (amongst other requirements) set a TAC that
maintains the stock at or above a level that can produce the MSY, having regard to the
interdependence of stocks. Having regard to this, and the other requirements of s.13, MFish
considers that the most current available information indicates that the existing TACC for
RCO 3 is not moving the stock towards BMSY and there are indications that the stock is
below MSY. While red cod is known to be fecund and have highly variable recruitment,
MFish is concerned that, based on the available information, RCO 3 may require several
years to recover from the current low biomass and a period of rebuild is necessary.
101
Therefore, MFish proposes that you set a TAC under s.13(2)(b) of the Act, taking into
account interdependence of stocks in the SIF fishery.
102
MSY is defined, in relation to any fish stock, as being the greatest yield that can be achieved
over time while maintaining the stock’s productive capacity, having regard to the population
dynamics of the stock and any environmental factors that influence the stock.
Proposed TAC options
103
All options are based on RCO 3 being on the Second Schedule of the Act and, therefore,
open to within fishing year TAC increases. All options recognise that the commercial
fishery is responsible for 95% of the catch.
104
Option 1 – A proxy status quo. This option is based on the current underlying assumption
that the high fecundity and natural variability of red cod allows the fishery to be managed
independently of the existing biomass. Estimates of recreational catch, customary catch and
other sources of fishing-related mortality have been added to the current TACC to set a
TAC. MFish proposes to include an estimate of 5% of the proposed TACCs for other
sources of fishing-related mortality for RCO 3. It is proposed that 280 tonnes be used as the
estimate for recreational catch as an input for calculating the TAC for all options, except for
Option 4 where, at the request of local recreational fishers, recreational catch has been
reduced by two thirds, given effect by a reduced recreational daily bag limit of 10. There
are no records of customary take of red cod in RCO 3. Therefore, it is proposed that a
nominal 5 t be used as the estimate for customary Maori catch as an input for calculating the
TAC. The same estimate is proposed for all options.
105
Given the Plenary considered that a constant catch at this level is unlikely to be attainable or
sustainable in most years, this is not an option preferred by MFish.
285 of 397
106
Ocean Fisheries Limited and Ocean Fisheries Quota Holding Company Limited, Talleys
Group Limited and The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Limited support this option.
107
Option 2 - This TAC option is based around a 25% reduction (actual 27.4%) to the TACC
to move the stock size towards BMSY. This option will still provide for utilisation during
years of high abundance without restricting harvest levels during most periods. Catches
exceeded this level in six of the last twenty years. MFish notes that there is a growing body
of support in fisheries management literature that advocates the retention of larger, older
fish within the population structure. Some fish populations have been shown to more
closely track short term environmental variability as a consequence of fishing down the age
structure. It has also been shown that a long tailed age structure can dampen the effects of
random environmental effects and thus stabilise fish populations. Options 2, 3, and 4 offer
the opportunity to “bank” some fish during the highest years of productivity to stabilise the
fishery and enhance a more reliable average catch. 74
108
Fishers that fish their own holding of RCO 3 quota will experience a 3.375% reduction in
income derived from their red cod landings, however, by owning quota shares they will also
benefit from any future TACC increase from a rebuild of the fishery.
109
Sanford Ltd supports this option.
110
Option 3 – This TAC option is based on the most recent 20-year average of commercial
catches, which closely coincides with the MIAEL estimate of MCY. This catch level was
exceeded in eight of the last twenty years. This option would have a 6% impact on revenue
derived from red cod landing for fishers that catch their own quota holding of RCO 3.
111
Option 4 – The TAC is based on the most recent 5-year average of commercial catches, and
actually reflects the fishery over the last seven years. This catch level was exceeded once in
the last five years but will not be reached this year. Option 4 is the most conservative
option with respect to sustainability risk. This option places a significant constraint on
commercial fishers and would have an 8.5% impact on revenue derived from red cod
landing for fishers that catch their own quota holding of RCO 3. While this option is the
most likely to require application of a within season TAC increase, with attendant costs,
option 4 could be a “stepping stone” in a conservative, risk averse rebuild of the fishery.
Recreational fishers, in support of this option, have volunteered to cut their daily bag limit
from 30 to 10 red cod a day should this option be implemented.
112
As this option proposes a change in the recreational daily bag limit, there will be costs
associated in implementing this change, including a change to the regulations, and
reprinting publicity brouchures.
113
Both ECO and the NZRFC support this option.
74
Law, R. (2007). Fisheries-induced evolution: present status and future directions. Marine Ecology Progress Series
335: 271–277.
Hsieh, C.H.; Reiss, C.S.; Hunter, J.R.; Beddington, J.R.; May, R.M. ; Sugihara, G. (2006). Fishing elevates variability
in the abundance of exploited species. Nature 443: 859–862.
286 of 397
Compliance
114
Under option 4, the recreational bag limit for RCO 3 would be decreased to 10. Any change
to recreational limits will need to be countered by an information campaign to maintain
voluntary compliance levels. This is a significant change from the current limit of 30 and
could increase infringement offences for that species.
115
The potential for the ACE price to rise also raises the incentive to dump or “high grade” for
catch that is likely to attract the maximum value from processors. Higher ACE prices are
likely to narrow profit margins for operators purchasing ACE.
Statutory Considerations
116
In forming the management options for RCO 3, the following statutory considerations have
been taken into account:
a)
The purpose of the Act (as provided in s.8) is to provide for the use of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability. Because information about red cod
abundance is uncertain, MFish has provided a range of options consistent with the
Act’s purpose. Options aim to provide for use while ensuring sustainability.
b)
The TAC set under s 13 should be set at the level that can produce the MSY, or it
should move the stock towards that level. MFish considers, on the information
available, that only options 2, 3, and 4 are likely to move the stock towards a level
that can produce the MSY.
c)
The proposed TAC options have also taken into account the following factors:
i)
Red cod stocks may vary from year to year because they are affected by
environmental conditions. However, specific environmental conditions have
not been identified that would affect the movement of the stock towards a
level that will support the MSY (as discussed in s 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Act).
ii)
The biological characteristics of red cod have been considered when
proposing options for the TAC (as required under s 13(2)(b)(ii)).
iii)
The vast majority of red cod is caught by trawl. As RCO 3 is a component of
the SIF fishery, there are a number of QMS stocks that are taken as an
unavoidable bycatch of trawling for red cod. Section 13(2) notes that, when
setting a TAC, the Minister shall have regard to the interdependence of
stocks. Changes in catch rates of red cod, combined with the recovery of
other quota species since the introduction of the QMS, have resulted in a
catch mix for which some fishers do not have the appropriate quota holdings.
Bycatch problems while targeting red cod are, therefore, common for
stargazer, red gurnard, elephant fish, rig, school shark, blue cod, groper and
tarakihi.
iv)
MFish considers that three proposed TAC options, other than the status quo,
will move to alleviate bycatch issues associated with the interdependence of
stocks and the RCO 3 fishery.
287 of 397
d)
Social, cultural and economic consequences are a relevant factor when the Minister
considers the way in which and rate at which a stock is moved towards or above a
level that can produce the MSY (s 13(3)). MFish has identified differing social
and economic consequences of altering the TAC and TACC under the four
options.
e)
Natural variability is a relevant factor to consider when setting or altering a
sustainability measure such as a TAC (s 11(1)(c)). This factor has been taken into
account when choosing the periods over which to calculate average commercial
catch.
f)
Section 9 sets out environmental principles that must be taken into account when
setting or altering a sustainability measure such as a TAC:
d)
Associated or dependent species should be maintained above a level that
ensures their long-term viability;
e)
Biological diversity of the aquatic environment should be maintained;
f)
Habitat of particular significance for fisheries management should be
protected.
g)
The options proposed here are unlikely to lead to increased catches, or an expansion
of fishing effort into previously unfished areas. All options are considered to
adequately take into account these environmental principles.
h)
Associated or dependent species (s 9a) are any non-harvested species – such as
seabirds or marine mammals – that are affected by the taking of any harvested
species. There have been instances on the South Island east coast where
endangered Hector’s dolphin have been caught in commercial trawl nets.
To manage this risk, a code of practice and regulations have been put in place in
areas of concern within RCO 3. The proposed TAC options will not result in
effort increasing but, rather, decreasing and risk to seabirds and marine mammals
from trawling for red cod will decrease accordingly.
i)
Protection of biological diversity of the aquatic environment also needs to be
considered (s 9(b)). Likewise, s 9(c) concerns the protection of habitat of
particular significance to fisheries management. Because no increase in fishing
effort is anticipated, it is not expected that any of the proposed TAC options
would have any additional impact on biological diversity or significant habitats.
j)
A wide range of international obligations relate to fishing, including use and
sustainability of fishstocks; and maintaining biodiversity (s 5(a)). MFish
considers that the management options for RCO 3 are consistent with these
international obligations.
k)
MFish also considers that the proposed management options are consistent with the
provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992
(s 5 (b)). Ongoing work is being done within the area covered by RCO 3 to
promote policies that help to recognise customary use and management practices.
This paper has identified a lack of information on the level of harvest and the
288 of 397
importance of red cod fisheries to customary fishers in RCO 3.
information on this topic would be welcomed.
l)
Further
Existing control measures have been considered when making recommendations for
any change to measures used to control the RCO 3 fishery (as outlined in
s 11(1)(b)). These include relevant regulations and fishery closures in RCO 3.
m) No relevant fisheries plan has been approved under s 11(2A)(b) of the Act.
n)
MFish has considered relevant conservation services and fisheries services (as
outlined in s 11(2A)(a and c)). No suggestion is made at this stage to alter any
decision about whether such services are required. If the fishery moves to a CAY
strategy, then development of an appropriate management mechanism or decision
rule may be required.
o)
There are no known relevant provisions concerning the coastal marine area in any
policy statement or plan under the Resource Management Act 1991, or any
management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1987 (as outlined in
s 11(2)(a) and (b) of the Fisheries Act). There 3 Regional Councils and one
Territorial Local Authority in the RCO 3 QMA. These are Canterbury, Otago and
Southland Regional Councils and the Chatham Islands Territorial Authority.
Conservation Strategies exist for the Chatham Islands, Canterbury, Otago,
Southland, Stewart Island and the Sub-Antarctic Islands.
p)
Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005: In recognition
of the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area's local, national, and
international importance, unique marine environment, distinctive biological
diversity, and outstanding landscape and cultural heritage, the Government passed
the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005 (the 2005
Act).
q)
The 2005 Act states in s 26 that all management agencies exercising powers or
carrying out functions in the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area must
take into account any advice or recommendations provided by the Guardians (this
includes powers and functions under the Fisheries Act 1996).
r)
RCO 3 includes the Fiordland coast and the Ministry has sought specific comment
from the Fiordland Marine Guardians on the proposals. No submission was
received.
s)
The nature of the fishery and the interests of each fishing sector have been
considered in proposing the TACC and allowances for customary and recreational
interests and other sources of fishing-related mortality (sections 21(1)(a and b),
21(4)(i and ii) and 21(5)). There are currently three mätaitai reserves and a taiapure
within RCO 3. There is also a 186B rähui closed area at Kaikoura. These areas
have been identified for customary fishing purposes in RCO 3, but the closures do
not materially affect red cod fisheries. No restrictions have been placed on
recreational fishing in any area within the QMA under s 311 of the Fisheries Act.
t)
Section 10 sets out information principles that are to be taken into account when
setting TACs.
289 of 397
u)
The best available information on the status of RCO 3 is the
i)
Report from the Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2006: stock assessments
and yield estimates complied by the Ministry of Fisheries Science Group,
May 2006.
ii)
Law, R. (2007). Fisheries-induced evolution: present status and future
directions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 335: 271–277.
iii)
Hsieh, C.H.; Reiss, C.S.; Hunter, J.R.; Beddington, J.R.; May, R.M. ;
Sugihara, G. (2006). Fishing elevates variability in the abundance of
exploited species. Nature 443: 859–862.
iv)
Unpublished Voyage Report KAH)0705 (July 2007) MFish Project Code
INT200602
Other Management Issues
Research
117
It is important to note that a research proposal has already been put forward to the Inshore
Research Planning Group to establish a “decision rule’ such that the inclusion of red cod on
the Second Schedule of the Act can be given relevant effect for in-season fluctuations in the
abundance of red cod in the RCO 3 fishery. The proposal is to go before the Research
Coordinating Committee in October.
118
MFish notes that the 2007 east coast South Island winter trawl survey any recruitment pulse
which suggests that this information may not be needed in the immediate future.
Deemed value
119
120
Stocks that are being considered for a TACC review as part of the October 2007
sustainability round are also being included in a deemed value review process. This is to
ensure that, in situations when a TACC is adjusted, the deemed value is also set at an
appropriate level to defend the new TACC. MFish considers that if the TACC is reduced
then deemed value rates should increase so that they adequately protect the new TACC.
The current annual deemed value rate ($0.32 per kg) is set below both the port price ($0.54
per kg) and average export price ($3.58 per kg). MFish proposes to increase the annual
deemed value rate so that it better reflects the current port price. Differential deemed value
rates will also change in line with the proposed annual deemed value rate. The proposed
deemed value rates for the 2007-08 fishing season are as follows:
a)
Annual deemed value rate to increase from $0.32 per kg to $0.50 per kg.
b)
Interim deemed value rate to increase from $0.16 per kg to $0.25 per kg, which is
50% of the new annual deemed value rate.
c)
Differential deemed value rates adjusted to reflect the proposed new annual deemed
value rate.
The proposed deemed value adjustments are dependant on a TACC decrease, if this is not
approved by the Minister then MFish considers the deemed value rates should remain
unchanged.
290 of 397
Southern Inshore Fisheries Plan
121
MFish intends to begin working with Tangata Whenua and stakeholders on a Fisheries
Plan for the southern finfish stocks within the next few years. All management issues,
such as managing red cod under s.14, can and will be evaluated at this time.
291 of 397
292 of 397
TARAKIHI (TAR 1) – FINAL ADVICE
Figure 1: Quota Management Areas for TAR
Executive Summary
1
This final advice paper (FAP) provides advice to you on reviewing the Total Allowable
Catch (TAC) for TAR 1, the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) and allowances
for the customary and recreational fisheries and other sources of fishery-related mortality.
2
The current TAC for TAR 1 was set at 1 958 tonnes in 2002. Recent commercial catches
have exceeded the TACC by up to 10%, averaging 5% in excess of the TACC per annum
over the last 10 years.
3
TAR 1 is a relatively information-poor fishery with little fishery-independent information
available, though it is thought that fishery-dependent catch per unit of effort indices (CPUE)
provides information on trends in abundance. There is no estimate of stock size or
maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Research is commencing later this year to update CPUE
indices for TAR 1 and a two-year shed sampling study will provide information on the size
and age composition of the commercial catch. These two projects will provide information
useful for a formal stock assessment in the near future. The 2007 Plenary report states
“Based on relatively stable indices of abundance current catches and the TACC for TAR 1
appear to be sustainable.” The IPP stated “Recent [commercial] catches have exceeded the
293 of 397
TACC by up to 10% (averaging 5% over-catch during the last 10 years) with no
sustainability concerns apparent.
4
The Initial Position Paper (IPP) was released in July 2007. As stated in the IPP, taking
account of the uncertainty in the best available information, MFish recommends you set the
TAC under section 13(2)(a) of the Fisheries Act 1996: to maintain the stock at or above the
biomass level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY), having regard to the
interdependence of stocks. The IPP proposed three options for reviewing the TAC and
under each TAC option, three different TACC/allowance options. MFish proposes those
same options for your consideration here.
5
Option 1 retains the existing TAC. Sub-options a, b, and c propose three different allocation
proposals. Sub-option 1a retains the existing allocations. If you choose sub-option 1a, and
decide to increase the deemed value for TAR 1 (refer to the deemed value section of this
FAP), it will likely result in a reduction in the landed commercial catch. Sub-options 1b and
1c propose a reallocation of the existing TAC in favour of the commercial and noncommercial sectors respectively. Options 1b and 1c were not supported by any of the
submitters and are not recommended by MFish.
6
Option 2 proposes a 70 tonne increase in the TAC. Sub-options a, b and c propose three
different allocations; sub-option a, proportional, sub-option b, all to commercial sector and
sub-option c, 35 tonnes to the non-commercial sector and 35 tonnes to the commercial
sector (and the allowance for other sources of mortality (OSM)). A 70 tonne increase is the
equivalent of the annual average 5% over-catch by the commercial sector over the past 10
years. If combined with the proposed increase in the TAR 1 deemed value, sub-option b
would be likely to retain commercial catches at their average existing level.
7
Option 3 proposes a 140 tonne increase in the TAC. Sub-options a, b and c propose three
different allocations; sub-option a, proportional, sub-option b, all to the commercial sector
and sub-option c, 70 tonnes to the non-commercial sector and 70 tonnes to the commercial
sector (and the allowance for other sources of mortality (OSM)). A 140 tonnes increase is
equivalent to the largest annual catch by the commercial sector since 1983-84, although
catches exceeded 1500 tonnes in 3 of the past 5 years.
8
TAR 1 is a significant shared fishery. All submissions by the non-commercial sector do not
support a TAC increase. Reasons for this stance are broad, but stem from the importance of
the fishery to the non-commercial sector, the lack of information on stock size, and what the
sector considers to be the inappropriateness of rewarding over-fishing. The New Zealand
Big Game Fishing Council (NZBGFC) submits that the level of the current recreational
allowance (470 tonnes) is appropriate, but notes that recreational fishers are finding it harder
to catch tarakihi off Northland’s east coast and in the Bay of Plenty. Surveys of recreational
catch, although quantitatively uncertain, have indicated that TAR 1 is the largest, by weight,
of the recreational tarakihi fisheries in New Zealand and was the 4th largest recreational
fishery in the 1996 survey and the 9th in the 1999-00 survey. The 1999-00 survey estimated
that the recreational take in TAR 1 was almost half (46%) of the commercial catch over that
period. The Ministry has no information on the size of the customary catch.
9
The submissions by the commercial sector (Sanford Limited, Northern Fisheries
Management Stakeholder Company Limited and SeaFIC), did not support any of the
proposed options. These submitters proposed an Adaptive Management Programme (AMP)
or industry-led fisheries plan in conjunction with a 43% increase in the TACC. MFish is
294 of 397
not supportive of initiating any new AMP and, in the circumstances, does not believe a
TACC increase of this magnitude, even with improved reporting, is consistent with the
requirements of section 13 and the purpose of the Act.
10
There is a strong relationship between having an effective TACC and an effective deemed
value regime. For any of the options, if you wish to ensure that the TACC sets an upper
limit on commercial catch, it is recommended that the deemed value for this stock is set
such that it becomes a disincentive to fishing outside the annual catch entitlement (ACE)
regime (details of the deemed value review are provided in the relevant section of the FAP).
11
Some submitters have proposed amending the Quota Management Area (QMA) for TAR 1
by dividing the existing QMA into an east coast and a west coast component. This is outside
the scope of the existing IPP process. Some submitters have requested that all trawlers be
included within the vessel monitoring system. Again, this is outside the ambit of this TAC
review process.
The Issue
12
Commercial landings of TAR 1 have exceeded the TACC for most of the last ten years,
with an average over catch of approximately 5% (fishing years 1996-97 to 2005-06). The
over catch has resulted in substantial deemed value payments by fishers.
13
Industry has, in recent years, expressed a view that further utilisation opportunities exist in
TAR 1. Industry has proposed an AMP to explore this potential. The Northern Fisheries
Management Stakeholder Company Limited (Northern Fisheries) requested that a TACC
increase be considered in the 2007 October sustainability round. The Northern Fisheries’
AMP proposal includes a 43% increase in the TACC. MFish advised that it would not be
considering any new AMPs during the 2006/07 financial year. However, it agreed to review
the TAC as part of the October 2007 sustainability round.
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
14
The IPP proposed the options described below.
15
Subsequent to the drafting of the IPP, MFish became aware of a small discrepancy in the
level of the TACC, and consequently the TAC. The discrepancy arose from setting a bait
allowance in this and other fisheries in 2001. This increased the TACC in TAR 1 from
1 958.000 tonnes to 1 959.195 tonnes pursuant to section 362 of the Fisheries Act 1996
(repealed on 1 October 2004). The following table presents the options proposed in the IPP,
but modified to incorporate the bait allowances. As it involves changes of less than 0.1% to
the TAC and TACC, MFish does not believe that these modifications materially affect the
proposals consulted on in the IPP.
295 of 397
Allowance
Approach
TAC*
Recreational
Allowance
Customary
Allowance
Other
Sources of
Mortality
20.000
TACC
a. Status quo
1 959.195
470.000
70.000
1 399.195
b.
Non-proportional
Option 1.
1 959.195
410.000
59.000
22.023
1 468.173
allocation to TACC
TAC
unchanged c. Non-proportional
1 959.195
539.000
80.000
19.806
1 320.839
allocation to noncommercial sectors
a. Proportional
2 029.195
487.000
73.000
21.712
1 447.483
Option 2.
b. Non-proportional
2 029.195
470.000
70.000
22.007
1 467.188
TAC
allocation to TACC
increase of c. Non-proportional
70 tonnes
2 029.195
500.000
75.000
21.490
1 432.705
allocation to noncommercial sectors
a. Proportional
2 099.195
505.000
76.000
22.436
1 495.759
Option 3.
b. Non-proportional
2 099.195
470.000
70.000
23.042
1 536.153
TAC
allocation to TACC
increase of c. Non-proportional
140 tonnes
2 099.195
530.000
80.000
22.007
1 467.188
allocation to noncommercial sectors
*all numbers in this table and the options below are expressed in tonnes to three decimal places to ensure
accuracy. However, elsewhere in the paper, figures are generally expressed without decimal places for
simplicity. For exact figures, please refer to this table.
e) Options 1a, b and c: propose a status quo approach with retention of the current TAC at
1 959.195 tonnes. Within these TAC options, you may choose to retain the current
allowances (1a); to assign a greater proportion of the TAC to the TACC (1b); or to
assign a greater proportion of the TAC to non-commercial allowances (1c).
f) Options 2a, b and c propose an increase to the TAC of 70.000 tonnes (5% of the current
TACC), in line with the average commercial over catch during the last 10 years. Within
these options, you may choose to assign the increase proportionally to all sectors (2a);
or disproportionately by assigning the increase to the TACC (2b); and in the case of 2c
35.000 tonnes would be allocated to the non-commercial sector and 35.000 tonnes to the
commercial sector.
g) Options 3a, b and c propose an increase to the TAC of 140.000 tonnes (10% of the
current TACC), in line with the highest level of commercial over catch in the fishery
since at least 1983–84. Within these options, you may choose to assign the increase
proportionally to all sectors (3a); or disproportionately by assigning the increase to the
TACC (3b); and in the case of 3c 70.000 tonnes would be assigned to the noncommercial sector and 70.000 tonnes to the commercial sector.
296 of 397
Final Proposal
16
MFish recommends that you:
EITHER
a)
Maintain the existing TAC and allocations (Option 1a),
OR
b)
Increase the TAC to 2 029.195 tonnes (70 tonne increase) and within the TAC:
i)
In accordance with Option 2a allocate 17.000 additional tonnes to the
recreational allowance, 3.000 additional tonnes to the customary allowance,
1.712 tonnes to “other sources of fishing-related mortality”, and 48.288
tonnes to the TACC
OR
ii)
In accordance with Option 2b allocate 2.007 additional tonnes to “other
sources of fishing-related mortality”, and 67.993 additional tonnes to the
TACC
OR
iii)
In accordance with Option 2c allocate 30.000 additional tonnes to the
recreational allowance, 5.000 additional tonnes to the customary allowance,
1.490 additional tonnes to “other sources of fishing-related mortality”, and
33.510 additional tonnes to the TACC.
OR
c)
Increase the TAC to 2 099.195 tonnes (140 tonne increase) and within the TAC:
i)
In accordance with Option 3a allocate 35.000 additional tonnes to the
recreational allowance, 6.000 additional tonnes to the customary allowance,
2.436 additional tonnes to “other sources of fishing-related mortality”, and
96.564 additional tonnes to the TACC.
OR
ii)
In accordance with Option 3b allocate 3.042 additional tonnes to “other
sources of fishing-related mortality”, and 136.153 additional tonnes to the
TACC.
OR
iii)
In accordance with Option 3c allocate 60.000 additional tonnes to the
recreational allowance, 10.000 additional tonnes to the customary allowance,
2.007 additional tonnes to “other sources of fishing-related mortality”, and
67.993 additional tonnes to the TACC.
297 of 397
Consultation
17
Your decision on whether or not to adjust the TAC for TAR1 is a decision under section
13(4)/s13(2)(a) of the Act and therefore the consultation requirements of section 12 apply.
Further, in respect of your decision whether or not to adjust the TACC for TAR1, the
consultation requirements set out in section 21(2) apply.
18
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of
those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the
aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Maori, environmental, commercial,
and recreational interests. Further, provision was made for the input and participation of
tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in the stock or an interest in the effects of
fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned, having particular regard to
Kaitiakitanga.
19
MFish followed its standard consultation process for IPPs in the October 2007 sustainability
round. This involved posting all IPPs on MFish’s website, and alerting stakeholders to this
through a letter sent to approximately 350 companies, organisations and individuals.
Analysts from MFish’s Auckland office also presented the TAR 1 IPP at meetings of the Te
Hiku o Te Ika (Far North Regional Iwi Forum), Mai i Nga Kuri a Wharei ki Tihirau (Bay of
Plenty Regional Iwi Forum) and Nga Hapu o Te Uru (Waikato Regional Iwi Forum). This
allowed members of these forums to discuss these issues both at the forum and with their
respective iwi/hapu and to lodge a submission if they felt it necessary.
Submissions Received
20
Submissions to the TAR 1 IPP were received from the following parties:
•
Aotearoa Fisheries Limited
•
Area 2 Inshore Finfish Management Company Ltd.
•
Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc. (ECO)
•
New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council Inc. (NZBGFC)
•
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC)
•
New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd. (SeaFIC)
•
New Zealand Seafood Industry Council (deemed value only)
•
Nga Hapu o Te Uru
•
Non-commercial Fishers (New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council and option4)
(deemed value only)
•
Sanford Limited
•
Te Runanga O Te Rarawa
298 of 397
•
25
The Northern Fisheries Management Stakeholder Company Limited (Northern
Fisheries)
A summary of the submissions and copies of the submissions in full are included in Volume
2 and Volume 3.
MFish Discussion
21
This section addresses the issues raised by submitters. The key views of submitters are
raised under each heading and the MFish response provided.
Response to Options Proposed by MFish
22
All environmental, recreational and customary submitters express their desire to see the
current TAC, TACC and allowances maintained in TAR 1. Retention of the “status quo”
was represented by option 1a in the IPP, though only some of the submitters explicitly
expressed their support for this option, with others simply advocating for no change to
current management. The non-commercial submitters generally cite a lack of information
about the status of this stock as the main reason for maintaining the status quo, with many
arguing that any changes to the TAC should be deferred until more information is available.
The NZBGFC noted that the current recreational allowance of 470 tonnes in TAR 1 seems
to be providing for the requirements of that sector. No submissions called for any change to
the recreational allowance, though NZBGFC noted that the customary allowance might be
too small.
23
Northern Fisheries, which represents 91% of the TAR 1 quota share owners, and Sanford,
which holds 34.4% of TAR 1 quota shares, propose increasing the TACC to 2000 tonnes, an
increase of 601 tonnes. This proposal is centred on an industry-proposed AMP. However, in
recognition that new AMPs would not be considered in this process by MFish, the
submitters suggest that the proposed AMP could be re-worked into an industry-led fishery
plan and/or contractual agreements such as a memorandum of understanding. SeaFIC notes
that it was “extremely unfortunate” that submitters were not provided with a chance to
comment on this proposal. SeaFIC contends that this option should not be disadvantaged in
your deliberations because MFish failed to consult on this matter. While this option was not
consulted on, MFish considers that the views expressed in the non-commercial submissions
arguing against the increases proposed in the IPP would apply to larger increases also.
MFish notes also that a similar proposal for an AMP in TAR 1 was consulted on in 2003,
with all non-commercial respondents expressing their opposition to that proposal, though
Northern Fisheries does claim to have addressed some of the concerns of non-commercial
submitters in the newest version of the AMP proposal.
24
In its submission, Northern Fisheries states that it was under the impression the basis of the
AMP proposal (a 43% increase to the TACC and associated catch splitting, monitoring,
research and performance reviews) discussed with MFish staff would be included as a
management option (though not necessarily in the form of an AMP) and consulted on
through the IPP.
25
MFish notes that it did not undertake to propose the AMP (either as an AMP or in any other
form) as an option in the IPP. Rather, MFish agreed to review the updated AMP proposal,
and to use any new information in this proposal in the development of management options
for the IPP. At a meeting prior to the drafting of the IPP, MFish informed Northern
299 of 397
Fisheries that it was no longer accepting new AMP applications, and that outside of the
AMP framework, large increases to a TAC were unlikely to be progressed without sufficient
supporting information to suggest they might be sustainable and might move the stock
towards a level that could support the MSY. MFish reviewed the updated AMP proposal
provided by Northern Fisheries and while the information contained within was used to help
develop options 2 and 3, MFish felt that this information was not sufficient to justify a 43%
increase to the TACC outside of an AMP program.
26
As an alternative to an AMP, the commercial submitters suggested the development of an
industry-led fisheries plan. MFish considers that an industry-led fisheries plan is not
appropriate for an important shared fishery such as TAR 1. MFish is planning to work with
all stakeholders over the coming five years on developing a fisheries plan for north eastern
finfish stocks that will include TAR 1.
27
Commercial fishing interests did not support any of the proposed options. Submissions from
Northern Fisheries, Sanford and SeaFIC contend that the three options proposed by MFish
are unnecessarily conservative, and that the full range of potential options has not been
explored. Northern Fisheries and SeaFIC refer to the long, stable catch history in the
fishery, stable or increasing CPUE indices, historical stock assessments and Plenary reports
as evidence that TAR 1 is likely to be at or above BMSY and could support additional
utilisation. SeaFIC also notes that MFish’s advice that the TAC in TAR 1 should be set
under s 13(2)(a) and the absence of any evidence in the IPP to suggest that the stock might
be below BMSY indicate that MFish believes that the stock is at or above BMSY. SeaFIC
concludes that the only reason an “extremely conservative” range of options is proposed is
uncertainty surrounding the non-commercial catch. All commercial submitters argue that an
option to increase the TACC to 2000 tonnes should have been included in the IPP, either in
the form of an AMP or an industry-led fisheries plan. These submitters believe that a range
of measures including catch spreading, areas closed to commercial fishing, several research
projects and monitoring and performance reviews would mitigate any adverse effects of this
TACC increase to other sectors, and to the fish stock itself.
28
MFish believes that the stock is probably at or above BMSY, and might support increased
catch. However, MFish notes that the highest commercial catch taken from the fishery was
1541 tonnes in 03–04, approximately 10% in excess of the TACC. MFish is not aware of
any information suggesting that an increase to the TAC of more than 140 tonnes is likely to
be sustainable or that it would maintain the stock at a level at or above BMSY as required by
section 13(2)(a). Indeed, a more cautious approach than increasing the TAC to recognise the
highest recorded commercial landing would be to base any increase on average landings
over a longer period, as represented by option 2.
29
MFish acknowledges that, in 2002 the AMP Working Group considered it likely that the
stock was at or above BMSY. However, the 2007 Plenary report is silent on BMSY. Relatively
stable catches for a long period and stable CPUE indices to 2003 indicate the population is
probably relatively stable, but these have not been updated since. While MFish considers
that the stock probably is at or above BMSY, the lack of a full stock assessment means that
there is significant uncertainty surrounding that assumption.
30
Considering the above, MFish does not support any increase beyond those discussed in the
IPP, and because of this, Northern Fisheries’ preferred option of a 43% increase to the
TACC was not proposed in the IPP. As expressed in the IPP, MFish is not accepting new
AMP applications in this process and, outside of the AMP framework, any change to a TAC
300 of 397
must be supported by existing information. MFish considers that the information supplied
by Northern Fisheries could only support TAC increases as large as those proposed in the
IPP. Increases in excess of those proposed would not be appropriate without improved
information to suggest that they would maintain the stock at or above the level that would
produce BMSY.
31
SeaFIC asserts that the only reason greater increases to the TAC are not proposed in the IPP
is uncertainty surrounding the non-commercial catch, and are concerned that any proposals
from industry will be declined on this basis. MFish notes that the primary reason for not
including the industry proposal for a 43% increase to the TACC as an option in the IPP
pertains to uncertainty surrounding the status of the TAR 1 stock, not uncertainty
surrounding recreational catch.
32
SeaFIC maintains that ideally, any “reasonable” increase to a TAC should be allocated
proportionally across all sectors. However, they argue that if only “conservative” TAC
increases are proposed, there is sufficient justification to assign any resultant increase to the
TACC only. This position is justified by reference to the uncertainty surrounding the level
of the non-commercial catch. SeaFIC contends that there is no rationale for increasing the
non-commercial allowances beyond current estimates of catch for these sectors, and that to
do so would only increase the proportion of the TAR 1 catch that is not reported or
effectively monitored and would not realise best value in the fishery.
33
MFish notes that submissions from recreational fishers either did not request an increase in
the recreational allowance, or in the case of the NZBGFC stated that the existing allowance
appeared to be adequate.
34
You have discretion regarding setting the TACC and allowances in respect of enabling the
different sectors to provide for their wellbeing. Should you consider it necessary to alter
allowances for the respective sectors to better provide for their wellbeing, MFish notes that
you are provided with options to that end.
Over Fishing and Deemed Values
35
There appears to be general support amongst submitters for the proposed increase in
deemed values for TAR 1 (and adjacent TAR stocks). However, submitters express different
views on the recent over catch in this fishery. Commercial submitters note that this over
catch (in conjunction with CPUE data) proves that additional catch, in excess of the current
TAC, is available in TAR 1. They state that option 1a in the IPP does not represent the
status quo, but would essentially act to reduce catch levels as the higher deemed values
proposed for this fishery would constrain catch below current levels.
36
In contrast, several recreational submitters contend that catch in excess of the TACC should
not be “rewarded” by increasing the TACC to recognise this over catch. They argue this
creates an incentive to commercial fishers to exceed catch limits and is not a legitimate
reason to increase the TAC or TACC for this fishery.
37
MFish advises you that catches (which are above the TACC) and the TACC for TAR 1
appear to be sustainable and on balance, MFish considers that it is probable that the stock is
at or above BMSY. This, in conjunction with other indicators, e.g., a stable commercial catch
history, provides some evidence that TAR 1 might support a higher TAC.
301 of 397
38
MFish notes that the previous deemed value regime might not have been effective in
deterring over catch in this fishery. However, MFish also notes that a review of deemed
values is currently proposing higher interim, annual and differential deemed value rates in
this fishery, and that the TAC (whether or not it is changed) is unlikely to be over caught if
the proposed changes to deemed values are implemented. MFish also notes cross-sector
support for this review amongst submitters to the TAR 1 IPP.
39
MFish notes that the term “status quo” applies to the levels at which the TAC is set, not to
actual catch levels. However, MFish agrees with some of the commercial submitters that if
you were to opt for option 1a, the proposed increases to deemed values in this fishery could
slightly reduce overall catch and commercial value from TAR 1. Similarly, MFish notes that
options 2 and 3 in the IPP would not necessarily result in catch in excess of current levels.
Lack of Information and Impending Research
40
Most of the non-commercial submissions raise concerns about the lack of information in
TAR 1. They state that the TAC should not be revised until such time as better information
is available. The NZRFC comments on the shed sampling and the CPUE analysis and states
that the TAC should not be reviewed until this information is available and a formal stock
assessment is undertaken. Commercial submitters disagree with this assessment,
maintaining that there is already sufficient information to support a much larger increase to
the TAC than those proposed in the IPP.
41
The 2007 Plenary report provides a snapshot of the status of TAR 1. This report concludes
that “based on the relatively stable indices of abundance current catches and the TACC for
TAR 1 appear to be sustainable.” However, this statement provides no indication of the
stock level for TAR 1 in relation to BMSY. It is also noted that the NZBGFC has suggested
that recreational fishers are finding it harder to catch tarakihi.
42
As noted in the IPP, two research projects focussed on TAR 1 are scheduled to begin on 1
October 2007; a CPUE analysis due to be completed in 2007–08 fishing year and a two-year
shed sampling project due to be completed in 2009. MFish believes that the two research
projects will provide more information in the future, and that this information should help
inform decisions about setting the TAC. While waiting for this information might, in
hindsight, show some economic benefit has been forgone, it may also show the existing
TAC is appropriate or that a TAC reduction is necessary. MFish notes that if you do decide
to increase the TAC this year, the impending research projects could enable you to monitor
any effects of this increase on the stock and make further changes if necessary.
43
MFish acknowledges that TAR 1 is an information-poor fishery and the additional
information from the shed sampling and the CPUE will contribute to our understanding of
the fishery. Section 10 of the Act provides you with some guidance on how to address such
issues when considering an appropriate TAC level. The section requires you to be cautious,
but also stipulates that the lack of information is not a reason, in itself, to postpone or not
make a decision.
44
Northern Fisheries also raises several other concerns around the proposed research. It
believes that the cost of both projects could be reduced if these were conducted under
industry-led fish plans or AMPs, noting that the shed sampling project would be at least
50% less costly to quota owners if carried out in this way. It notes that many of the quota
owners and licensed fish receivers they represent are unaware of MFish’s intention to
302 of 397
conduct this research. MFish notes that the research project (TAR2007/02) was part of the
Fisheries Research Services for 2007–08 that was consulted on in early 2007 as part of the
consultation process on the Statement of Intent. The project was discussed at the Research
Coordinating Committee meeting in October 2006 and SeaFIC provided a submission on
the project after that meeting.
Lessons from TAR 2 and TAR 3 Adaptive Management Programmes
45
The NZBGFC submission requested that MFish describe to you what has happened in the
TAR 2 and TAR 3 AMPs, as it sees that information to be revealing of how fishers have
responded in recent years to TACC increases for TAR under AMPs in other areas. MFish
notes that it is not considering an AMP proposal for TAR 1 at this time so the experiences
for these stocks are not particularly relevant to your consideration of reviewing the TAC for
TAR 1.
46
MFish notes that the TACCs for both stocks were increased under AMPs as from 1 October
2004. In both cases, the previous TACCs had been exceeded in at least three of the five
years before the 2004-05 fishing year. The 2007 Plenary report sets out the detailed views of
the Adaptive Management Programme Fisheries Assessment Working Group (AMP
FAWG) after reviewing progress with TAR 2 and 3 AMPs.
47
MFish notes that the AMP FAWG found several deficiencies with the information provided
under the AMPs. For example, AMP FAWG noted various deficiencies with the data being
provided under the TAR 3 AMP logbook and catch sampling arrangements. Specifically,
the group noted that the logbook scheme was only extended to cover TAR 3 from 2004/05,
and that the coverage of catch by season and areas was inadequate.
Quota Management Area Too Large
48
The NZRFC comments that the quota management area (QMA) for TAR 1 too large and
should be split such that there is an east coast and a separate west coast QMA. The size of
the QMAs was not discussed in the IPP and therefore this issue has not been put before
stakeholders. This proposal is outside the existing process and should be considered through
a separate process.
Vessel Monitoring System
49
The submission by the NZRFC also suggests that that all commercial fishers in TAR 1
should be required to operate under a vessel monitoring system. This is outside the ambit of
this IPP and should be considered in a separate process.
Shared Fishery
50
The recreational submitters stressed the importance of TAR 1 as a shared fishery. In making
these comments the NZGBFC noted that despite improved equipment, anecdotal
information suggests that catch levels of tarakihi on the east coast of Northland and in the
Bay of Plenty were declining. MFish has no information to support or refute this claim. The
Ministry is developing a recreational fishing survey that will add some insight to this issue,
however, this survey is to be undertaken in the 08/09 fishing year. Accordingly, the results
of this survey will not be available to inform the current process.
303 of 397
Iwi Consultation
51
The NZBGFC commented that the Ministry had not met its obligations under section 12 of
the Act in relation to providing for input from tangata whenua. Section 12 requires MFish to
provide for the input and participation of tangata whenua who have a non-commercial
interest in the stock concerned. MFish supports a number of iwi forums within the North
Island. MFish presented the IPPs and were available to discuss the proposals with persons
concerned.
Rationale for Management Options
Main characteristics of the fishery
52
The 2007 Plenary report states that tarakihi are caught in coastal waters of the North and
South Islands of New Zealand, as well as the Chatham Islands and Stewart Island. The main
commercial fishing target method is trawling. Major target trawl fisheries are in 100 – 200
metre depths. The overall fishery for tarakihi (all stocks) appears to have been relatively
stable since initial development. Similarly, the commercial catch in TAR 1 has been
relatively stable since at least 1991-92.
53
The 2007 Plenary report states that, in the North Island tarakihi fisheries, about 70 – 80% of
tarakihi commercial catch is taken by target trawling. In TAR 1, some quantity is also taken
as a bycatch in trawls targeting other species (including trevally, snapper, and John dory).
Relatively small quantities are taken as a bycatch by other commercial methods (including
lining) (Fisheries Information System May 2007).
54
There are three main fishery areas for tarakihi in TAR1. The largest target catch is generally
taken from the Bay of Plenty (although catches vary between years), with slightly smaller
quantities taken from the east coast of Northland and west coast of Northland.
55
The commercial fishery appears to have a seasonal peak in the autumn and winter months,
although substantial landings are made throughout the year. Fishers have reported the view
that tarakihi move into shallower waters during the cooler months.
56
Recreational fishers in TAR 1 have commented previously that they value the species
highly. It is known for its good eating qualities, and probably ranks highly as a food species
(tarakihi are within the mixed species daily bag limit of 20 fish). Surveys of recreational
catch, although quantitatively uncertain, have indicated that TAR 1 is the largest (by
weight) tarakihi fishery in New Zealand. The TAR 1 recreational fishery was estimated to
be the 4th largest nationally in the 1996 survey, and 9th largest in the 1999-00 survey.
57
Recreational fishers in TAR 1 are known to target the species using lining methods from
boats. The depth distribution of tarakihi in TAR 1 means that it is not often taken by shorebased anglers. In previous discussions with recreational fishers they have indicated that the
tarakihi fisheries in the Bay of Plenty and East Northland areas are most important to the
sector. In submissions on the IPP, some recreational fishers have reported that tarakihi is
currently difficult to catch in the East Northland area.
58
Little is known about the extent of customary catch of tarakihi in TAR 1. While tarakihi is
known to have value as a customary food source, recent and current harvest levels are
unknown.
304 of 397
59
Between 1993–94 and 2004–05, a second species of tarakihi, king tarakihi, was reported
under the code KTA but was managed outside the QMS. During this period, the average
annual catch for KTA 1 and 9 combined was 25 tonnes. After the 2004–05 fishing year,
fishers were required to report all tarakihi, including king tarakihi, under the code TAR.
60
The figures reported in this FAP, do not reflect this separation and accordingly during the
period 1993–94 to 2004–05 the actual tarakihi catch, including king tarakihi, was on
average 25 tonnes greater per year than the figures shown.
Information on stock size and maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
61
There is no formal stock assessment for TAR 1 to provide estimates of stock status with
respect to BMSY, nor estimates of the MSY. Thus, most information currently available
about TAR 1 is derived from the commercial fishery; particularly from catch per unit effort
(CPUE) data. 75 While there is often uncertainty associated with CPUE data, the 2007
Plenary report concluded that CPUE indices are probably monitoring tarakihi abundance in
TAR 1.
62
The 2007 Plenary report notes that CPUE indices for East Northland and the West Coast
North Island fisheries (available for the period 1989-90 to 2003-04) show no trend between
1989/90 and 2003/04; and that CPUE in the Bay of Plenty was stable until 1999-00 when a
sharp increase occurred, possibly as a result of good recruitment in 2000-01. Overall, the
available CPUE indices in TAR 1 (until 2003-04) are stable or increasing slightly. CPUE
indices are to be updated again in 2008. The 2007 Plenary report states that current
commercial catches and the TACC appear to be sustainable. The 2007 Plenary did not
comment on the TAR 1 stock’s biomass in relation to BMSY.
63
Analysing the catch history in TAR 1 is a further useful source of information regarding the
potential yield from the fishery. Commercial landings have been relatively stable — varying
between 912 tonnes and 1541 tonnes since 1983-84 and between 1387 tonnes and 1541
tonnes over the period 1991-92 to 2005-06. Landings have exceeded the TACC for most of
the last ten years, with an average over-catch of approximately 5% during this period
(fishing years 1996-97 to 2005-06) (see figure 1).
64
Taken together, these data suggest that increasing the TAC to reflect recent overcatch is
likely to be sustainable.
75
CPUE is a measure of relative abundance of a fish stock and refers to the expected catch for a unit of fishing effort. If
catch rate changes, it is taken to indicate a relative change in the abundance of the stock.
305 of 397
Catch vs TACC in TAR 1 1986–87 to 2005–06
1800
1600
1400
tonnes
1200
Landings
1000
TACC
800
600
400
200
2005/06
2004/05
2003/04
2002/03
2001/02
2000/01
1999/00
1998/99
1997/98
1996/97
1995/96
1994/95
1993/94
1992/93
1991/92
1990/91
1989/90
1988/89
1987/88
1986/87
0
Fishing Year
Figure 1: Catch vs. TACC in TAR 1 1986–87 to 2005–06
Over catch of the TACC
65
As noted above, commercial landings have exceeded the TACC for most of the last ten
years, with an average over catch of approximately 5% during this period (fishing years
1996-97 to 2005-06).
66
This over catch has resulted in substantial deemed value payments by fishers unable to
balance catches against ACE. In the last fishing season (2005–06) deemed value invoices to
a value of $80 287 were issued. This is about 2.8% of the landed value of the fishery.
However, deemed value payments have been much higher in recent years, with an average
of $241 172 over the past five years and a maximum annual total of $391 172 in 03–04.
67
An analysis of the information available suggests that all ACE has been used in most years.
A relatively large number of fishers/clients have paid deemed values for TAR 1 in each
year, with the majority needing to cover relatively small quantities of catch. This is
consistent with some fishers taking small amounts of tarakihi as an unavoidable bycatch
when targeting other species.
68
Some fishers have, in several years, reported substantial quantities of TAR 1 as both target
and bycatch. Fishers have balanced a large portion of that catch with ACE, but have also
paid deemed values for further substantial quantities. It appears that those fishers have not
found the current deemed value rates for TAR 1 to be a disincentive to catching well in
excess of the available ACE. It is also evident that ACE prices can exceed the annual
deemed value rate, weakening any incentive to obtain ACE or attempt to constrain catches.
306 of 397
69
MFish is reviewing the deemed value rates for TAR 1 (and other adjacent TAR stocks – see
Volume 4) with a view to setting the rates at appropriate levels to achieve the purpose of the
catch balancing regime. Altering the individual over catch threshold at which ramping of
deemed values begins is an option being considered to constrain overfishing.
AMP proposals in TAR 1
70
Industry has, over a number of recent years, expressed its view that a utilisation opportunity
exists in TAR 1 and has proposed AMPs to explore this potential. Northern Fisheries
requested that a TACC increase be considered in the 2007 October sustainability round.
Northern Fisheries provided its AMP proposal for a 43% increase to the current TACC in
support of this request. MFish has previously advised that it will not be considering AMPs
this financial year. Outside of an AMP framework, MFish considers that increases as large
as 43% would need to be supported by reliable information that such an increase would
maintain, or move the stock to a level at or above BMSY.
71
Submissions on the IPP from the commercial fishing sector maintain that existing
information suggests that the TAC in TAR 1 could be increased by significantly more than
the options proposed by MFish. While not expressly seeking an AMP, these submitters
argue that increasing the TACC to 2000 tonnes and implementing a range of catch
spreading, research, performance and monitoring programs is a legitimate and sustainable
utilisation opportunity. As expressed earlier, MFish has no information to suggest that
increasing the TACC to 2000 tonnes would be sustainable or would maintain, or move the
stock to a level at or above BMSY.
Key points to consider
72
On balance, MFish considers that it is probable that the stock is at or above BMSY but is
currently lacking a full stock assessment to support this assumption. There are currently no
estimates of the MSY for TAR 1.
73
The primary driver for this review is that the TACC has been fairly consistently exceeded
for a number of years. The relatively stable commercial catch levels and indices of relative
abundance (CPUE) available through to 2003-04 possibly support industry’s view that the
stock can provide for further sustainable utilisation above the current TAC. However,
MFish does not agree with the commercial submitters’ interpretation of existing information
that the stock can support an increase to the TACC of 43%. The CPUE indices will be
updated in 2008 and the results of a shed sampling program should become available from
2009. The 2007 Plenary report states that current catches and the TACC appear to be
sustainable.
74
TAR 1 is a shared fishery, of importance to both customary and recreational fishers.
Surveys to estimate recreational catches in 1996 and 1999-00 (although providing uncertain
results) showed that the catches in TAR 1 were substantially larger than tarakihi catches in
any other area. The 2007 Plenary report notes that the recreational catch estimated from the
1999-00 survey was 46% of the commercial catch in that period. As a shared fishery, setting
TACs to maintain the stock above the BMSY level is a valid objective. MFish notes also that
the Auckland and Tauranga areas are experiencing substantial growth in human population.
It is possible that an increasing regional population would be accompanied by increasing
recreational interest in fishing for TAR 1 as well as increasing demand for the product by
regional consumers.
307 of 397
75
In previous submissions on proposed AMPs in TAR 1, recreational interests expressed
concern that an increase to commercial catch would impinge upon both the size and
availability of tarakihi to recreational fishers. This was seen as particularly important in the
areas where commercial and recreational interests are thought to overlap, primarily in the
Bay of Plenty and East Northland areas. This was a contentious issue between commercial
and non-commercial sectors in previous AMP applications in TAR 1.
76
With the exception of options 3a and 3b, the options proposed in the IPP would not see
authorised commercial catch exceed recent actual catch levels (taken as the 10 year average
of commercial landings) by more than 6 tonnes. If any of the options (other than 3a and 3b)
were implemented, MFish considers that non-commercial sectors would be unlikely to see
the nature and extent of their TAR 1 fishery reduced. If either options 3a or 3b were
implemented, there is a greater risk of affecting the nature and extent of the fishery available
to non-commercial sectors compared to the other options, though the level of this risk is
unknown.
77
Given the lack of estimates of current stock size and MSY, and the uncertainty associated
with the available estimates of non-commercial catches, the options proposed in this paper
consider either no change or relatively small increases to the TAC based on recent levels of
catch. The research information that will become available over the coming two years
should enable a stock assessment. The imminent fisheries planning process will provide an
appropriate open forum for stakeholders to develop their respective objectives for the
TAR 1 fishery with the benefit of improved information.
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
78
In setting a TAC, you are required by section 11(2)(c) of the Act to have particular regard to
sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 in so far as the decision relates
to the Hauraki Gulf. Section 7 recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf
including its capacity to provide for the relationship of tangata whenua and the social,
economic, recreational, and cultural well-being of people and communities. Section 8 sets
out the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, which include the maintenance
of the Hauraki Gulf for the social and economic well-being and its contribution to the
recreation and enjoyment of the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New
Zealand. The maintenance and enhancement of the physical resources of the Gulf, which
include tarakihi, is also an objective.
79
Tarakihi is a shared fishery. Tarakihi is important to the customary, recreational and
commercial sectors however, from a fishery perspective, due to its preference for deeper
waters is not normally found in the inner Hauraki Gulf. Its value to fishers is therefore
confined to locations of deep water, in particular east of Coromandel and the outer Hauraki
Gulf.
80
Relatively little tarakihi is caught commercially in the inner Hauraki Gulf (Statistical
Reporting Areas 006 and 007). Tarakihi is caught in slightly larger quantities in the outer
Gulf and northeast of Great Barrier Island (Statistical Areas 004 and 005), and significantly
larger quantities east of the Coromandel and into the Bay of Plenty (in areas 003, 008 and
009, though the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park only covers a relatively small part of areas 008
and 009).
308 of 397
81
MFish understands that the bulk of nationwide landings of tarakihi (approximately 6 000
tonnes) is sold on the domestic market and that it is a popular species with consumers. Only
about 116 tonnes or 2 % of landings nationally were exported in the 2006 calendar year,
mostly to Australia. MFish has no information to suggest that this is not also the case for
commercial landings from TAR 1. The wellbeing of commercial fishers of tarakihi and of
consumers who would purchase commercially caught tarakihi could benefit from an
increase to the TACC. The primary benefit to commercial fishers would arise if the amount
of annual catch entitlement (ACE) was greater and deemed value payments were reduced.
However, the amount of any increase to catch limits proposed under any option in this paper
is unlikely to have a significant effect on employment opportunities for commercial fishers
or processors, or the supplies of tarakihi at local domestic fish markets.
82
MFish has no information to suggest that tarakihi in the Hauraki Gulf are more or less
important to non-commercial fishers than tarakihi elsewhere. Commercial and recreational
catch reports and surveys suggest that tarakihi are available in the marine park, particularly
in the deeper, more easterly areas.
83
As a species of some importance to recreational fishers, an increase in the allowances could
provide a wellbeing benefit to that sector. However, in the absence of information to suggest
that the current allowances are insufficient for recreational and cultural wellbeing, MFish is
not in a position to qualify or quantify the relative benefits of increases to the respective
sectors.
Assessment of Management Options
Total Allowable Catch
84
The IPP proposed three options for reviewing the TAC for TAR 1. Option 1 proposed no
alteration to the TAC, Option 2 proposed a 70 tonne increase and Option 3 a 140 tonne
increase. The basis for these options has already been described in this report.
85
Pursuant to section 13(4) of the Act, MFish proposes that you set the TAC for TAR 1 under
section 13(2)(a). This section requires a TAC to be set that maintains the stock biomass at or
above a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, having regard to the
interdependence of stocks.
86
The 2002 Plenary reported that the TAR 1 biomass was probably above the level that can
produce MSY, however, the 2007 plenary is silent on this matter. Currently available CPUE
indices for TAR 1 (until 2003-04) are stable or increasing slightly, and commercial landings
have been relatively stable for more than 15 years. The 2007 Plenary report states that,
“based on relatively stable indices of abundance current catches and the TACC for TAR 1
appear to be sustainable.”
87
In the absence of reliable estimates of biomass and MSY for TAR 1, MFish proposed the
three options described previously.
88
Option 1 would result in no change to the TAC and represents the most cautious approach.
This option recognises the fact that the existing TAC is unlikely to: risk the long-term
sustainability of the fishery; significantly alter the ability of fishers from any sector to derive
wellbeing from the fishery; or give rise to any other sustainability concerns. The effects of
309 of 397
altering the allocations under this option are addressed in the following section. However,
retention of the existing TAC, if implemented in conjunction with a deemed value increase,
is likely to result in a reduced commercial catch compared to recent years. This may result
in direct effects on the commercial sector and as 60% of commercially caught tarakihi is
sold on the domestic market, result in some flow-on social, cultural and economic effects to
the community.
89
Option 2 proposed a 70 tonnes increase in the TAC. This is approximately equivalent to the
average level of TACC over catch over the past 10 years. In terms of section 8 of the Act,
such an increase would enable enhanced utilisation for the commercial sector in particular
and based on population and catch indices, an increase of this quantum is likely to be
sustainable. Although no MSY estimates are available, given such an increase recognises
the level of catch that has been taken for several years, MFish considers that the increase to
the TAC set out under this option would likely maintain TAR 1 at or above BMSY (albeit
with more risk than Option 1 that the TAC will not maintain the stock at or above BMSY).
Option 2 would most likely result in some social, cultural and economic benefits (in
particular for commercial fishers), however, the size and nature of these effects would be
dependent on the allocation option selected.
90
Option 3 proposed a 140 tonne increase to the TAC. This is approximately equivalent to the
highest level of commercial over catch during the past 5 years. Catches have been at or near
this level in three of the past 10 years. Such an increase would provide for greater utilisation
at least in the short term. Option 3 would potentially provide greater social, cultural and
economic benefits (in particular for commercial fishers). However, in the absence of a full
stock assessment, MFish considers that this option provides the most risk of the three
options proposed that the TAC will not maintain the stock at a biomass equal to or above
BMSY over time.
91
Finally MFish notes that, in overall terms, the difference between the options is relatively
small in relation to the current TAC and TACC. The relative risk to sustainability associated
with the any of the options is likely to be similarly small.
TACC and Allowances
92
Section 20 of the Act provides for you to vary the TACC for TAR1. In varying the TACC,
section 21 of the Act requires you to have regard to the TAC and allow for Maori customary
non-commercial interests, recreational interests, and other sources of fishing-related
mortality. In undertaking this decision, by virtue of the purpose of the Act, you should
consider how best to enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural
wellbeing.
93
Within each of the TAC options, the IPP contained three sub-options. Sub-option “a”
proposes a proportional allocation across all sections. Generally the submissions from the
commercial sector support proportional allocation. Sub-option “b” proposes allocating the
TAC increase solely to the commercial sector and sub-option “c” proposed allocating half
the increase to the non commercial sector and half to the commercial sector. Each of these
sub-options poses different cost-benefit outcomes. MFish notes that SeaFIC supports suboption “b” for the options presented in the IPP, though it maintains that greater increases
need to be considered.
310 of 397
94
Under sub-option “a”, all parties would receive either no increased benefit (Option 1a) or
share any benefits equally (Options 2a and 3a). Sub-option “b” proposes a non-proportional
allocation in favour of the commercial sector. Sub-option “c” proposes a non-proportional
allocation in favour of the non-commercial sector, such that 50% of any TAC increase is
allocated to the non-commercial sector and 50% to the commercial sector.
Commercial Utilisation
95
The table below provides an account of the potential changes to the commercial value of
TAR 1 resulting from the options proposed. Option 1a is set at zero as this is based on the
current TACC. These figures do not take into account the value of any fish taken above the
level of the TACC, though it is probable that industry receive revenue from catch in excess
of the TACC.
Approximate value to the commercial sector under different options:
Option 1. TAC
unchanged
Option 2. TAC
increase of 70
tonnes
Option 3. TAC
increase of 140
tonnes
Sub-option
TAC
TACC
a
b
c
a
b
c
a
b
c
1 959.195
1 959.195
1 959.195
2 029.195
2 029.195
2 029.195
2 099.195
2 099.195
2 099.195
1 399.195
1 468.173
1 320.839
1 447.483
1 467.188
1 432 705
1 495 759
1 536 153
1 467 188
Approximate
commercial value*
of proposed TACCs
0
+$140 000
-140 000
+100 000
+140 000
+70 000
+200 000
+280 000
+140 000
* based on the average port price of $2.00/ kg. Figures shown are independent of any alteration to deemed
value.
96
Under option 1a, the TAC remains unchanged (1 959.195 tonnes) and the industry will
receive no increased benefit. If fishing in excess of the TACC continues, industry will
continue to bear the costs of deemed values. Moreover, if you recommend an increase in
deemed values to $3.00 per kg as proposed in the deemed value review (this volume), based
on the 2005/06 fishing year deemed value invoices could be approximately $114,000
(assuming that current over catch patterns do not change).
97
Option 1b retains the existing TAC, but proposes a realignment of allocation away from the
non-commercial sector to the commercial sector. This reallocation would not cover all
overfishing or bycatch, but would result in significant cost savings as the amount of deemed
value invoices issued would be less. In addition, the industry would receive the added
benefit of revenue generated from the sale of fish. There were no submissions supporting
this option and whilst this option is available to you, it is not recommended.
98
Option 1c proposes a realignment of allocation within the existing TAC away from the
commercial sector to the non-commercial sector. Given the level of over fishing and that
much of this occurs in the SNA 1 fishery MFish considers that this option would add
significant costs to the industry. Moreover, should the industry be able to reduce the level of
bycatch and over fishing it would still face a loss of earnings of approximately $140 000.
311 of 397
There were no submissions supporting this option and whilst this option is still open for
your consideration, MFish does not recommend it.
99
Under option 2a the TAC increases by 70 tonnes (to 2 029.195 tonnes). The level of TACC
would increase, though not to the level of the average commercial catch for the past 10
years. Under this option, total deemed value payments should decrease as extra ACE will be
available and approximately $100 000 of extra value should be realised by industry.
100
Option 2b proposes 70 tonnes be allocated to the commercial sector. Levels of deemed
value payments should be reduced and returns would increase by approximately $140 000.
101
Option 2c proposes 70 tonnes be allocated non-proportionally, with the recreational and
customary sectors receiving 35 tonnes, and industry and the allowance for other sources of
mortality also receiving 35 tonnes. Under this option the industry would receive some
benefit and, presuming it constrained overfishing and bycatch, returns could increase by
approximately $70,000.
102
Under option 3a the TAC would increase by 140 tonnes (to 2 099.195 tonnes) and allocated
proportionally, with industry receiving approximately 96 tonnes. Assuming similar trends in
catch levels and that all ACE is traded, there could be few or no deemed value payments
necessary in TAR 1 under this option. Based on current port prices, revenue would increase
by approximately $200,000.
103
Option 3b proposes 140 tonnes be assigned solely to industry and the OSM allowance. The
level of the TACC would be greater than the annual catch for all but one of the last eight
years. This option would provide the greatest return to the industry at approximately
$280,000.
104
Option 3c proposes that the 140 tonnes be allocated non-proportionally, with the industry
(and OSM allowance) receiving 70 tonnes. It is probable that total deemed value payments
would be reduced and returns to industry could increase by approximately $140,000.
105
If an increased deemed value is adopted, such that it precludes “deemed value fishing”, and
putting sustainability issues aside, then:
a)
If it is desired to enable commercial fishers to take the equivalent of the average
commercial catch over the past 10 years, then Option 2b should achieve this.
b)
If it is desired to enable commercial fishers to take the equivalent of the maximum
annual commercial catch recorded in the past 10 years, then Option 3b should
achieve this.
Recreational
106
Under option 1a, 2b and 3b there would be no change to the recreational allowance. MFish
currently has no information to suggest that the existing allowance for the recreational
sector does not allow for recreational fishers’ interests in TAR 1. MFish notes that one
recreational submitter (NZBGFC) expressed that the current recreational allowance
appeared to be adequate, while no other submitter commented on this issue.
107
Option 1b proposes a cut to the recreational allowance. There were no submissions in
support of this option and whilst this option is available MFish does not recommend it.
312 of 397
108
Options 1c, 2a, 2c, 3a and 3c all propose increases to the recreational allowances ranging
from 73 to 80 tonnes. If the recreational allowance was increased, MFish considers that any
change to the daily recreational bag limit is unlikely to be necessary. There is no
information available to suggest that 20 tarakihi (tarakihi is included in the 20 mixedspecies bag limit) is insufficient in providing for the needs of recreational fishers. Instead,
an increased allowance would allow for the taking of more daily bag limits over the course
of a season. However, as noted above, there was little support from any sector for increasing
the recreational allowances.
Customary
109
Little is known about the extent of customary catch of tarakihi. While tarakihi is known to
have value as a customary food source, recent and current harvest levels are unknown.
Thus, there is no information presently available to suggest that the current allowance of
70 tonnes does not provide for customary catch. No new information about customary catch
was supplied in submissions on the IPP.
Other Fisheries-Related Mortality
110
No quantitative information is available on the level of illegal or unreported catch, or other
sources of mortality in the TAR 1 fishery. The primary method of catch for tarakihi is
bottom trawl, and therefore some mortality can be expected where tarakihi escape through
the net, but are fatally injured. As a minimum legal size applies, mortality must also be
associated with the capture and release of undersized fish. In 2002, the Minister set an
allowance of 20 tonnes within the TAC to cover other sources of mortality across all
sectors.
111
MFish considers that the allowance for other fishery-related mortality should be increased in
proportion to any increase in the TACC and allowances. MFish considers it should be set at
1.5% of the TACC.
Statutory Considerations
112
Section 13: As discussed in the body of the paper, MFish considers that the options
presented in this paper are consistent with section 13(2)(a) which requires the TAC to
maintain the biomass of the stock at or above the level that can produce MSY. Based on
relatively stable catches and CPUE data, MFish considers that the TAC options presented in
this paper are likely to maintain TAR 1 at a level which can produce MSY and be
sustainable, at least in the short term.
113
With regards to the interdependence of stocks, a range of species are caught in the target
trawl fishery for TAR 1. The three most significant commercial bycatch species reported in
the TAR 1 target bottom trawl fishery in 2005-06 were snapper (9%), barracouta (7%) and
hoki (3%). All these species are managed under the QMS with strong incentives to balance
catches to the available ACE. The options proposed in the report are modest and are
unlikely to result in any effect on the interdependence of stocks.
114
Sections 5(a) and 5(b): There is a wide range of international obligations relating to fishing
(including sustainability and utilisation of fishstocks and maintaining biodiversity). MFish
313 of 397
considers that the section 5 considerations arising from New Zealand’s international
obligations and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act
1992 is adequately addressed by management proposals for TAR 1. MFish is not aware of
any issues concerning those international obligations and the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 that will result from the proposed TACs,
TACCs and allowances.
115
Section 8: The purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996 is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability. Utilisation is defined in the Act as including using
and developing fisheries resources.
116
In relation to considering the appropriate TAC options, MFish considers you must weigh up
providing for the utilisation of tarakihi with ensuring the sustainability of tarakihi –
however, ensuring sustainability is the bottom line and the ultimate objective. You must be
satisfied that your decision will ensure sustainability while providing for utilisation. This
does not require the selection of option 1; given the uncertainty of information, you must
exercise your judgement, and may determine that options 2 or 3 satisfy your obligation with
respect to sustainability.
117
The options for the TACC and allowances recognise the development potential of the
fishery (as evidenced by catch history and indices of stock abundance), and create the
potential for people to provide better for their social, cultural, and economic wellbeing.
People can achieve this well being through the utilisation of commercial, recreational and
customary fisheries. In terms of allocation, these factors are discussed in more detail in
paras 92-109 in the “TACC and Allowances” section.
118
An increase to the TAC could increase the value able to be extracted from this fishery. In
doing so you may potentially be increasing risk to stock sustainability, although MFish
considers the level of risk to sustainability from the three proposed options to be low. MFish
has also implementing a research and monitoring programmes for TAR 1 over the next few
years. This will provide information that will enable MFish to identify and manage any risks
in the near term.
119
TAR1 is an important shared fishery. Utilisation, in this context, must mean the ability of all
sectors to have a reasonable opportunity to utilise the fishery. An over-generous allocation
to one sector may impede reasonable utilisation by other sectors and therefore may impede
the proper purpose of the Act. Given the lack of information on TAR 1, MFish considers the
purpose of the Act would be best met by a relatively cautious approach to increasing the
TAC. The options proposed meet this criterion.
120
The management options presented provide for different levels of utilisation through the
setting of catch limits and allowances. Given that the options propose increasing the TAC
through option 1 (nil increase) to option 3 (140 tonnes increase), it is likely that the
sustainability risk will also increase. In the absence of information, the smaller increases
provide some degree of increased certainty that the level of harvest is sustainable over the
long term. Having stated this, the relative risk to sustainability across the three options is not
significant.
314 of 397
Economic wellbeing and factors
121
The TAR 1 catch is New Zealand’s second largest after TAR 2, taking about 23% of the
total tarakihi landings. The commercial fishery appears to have a seasonal peak in Autumn
and winter, although substantial landings are made throughout the year.
122
The TAR 1 fishery is a significant contributor to the $650,161 export value (2006) of
tarakihi. Of the various export states, 78% by value (or 67% by weight) of tarakihi is either
chilled or frozen fillets. It is not possible to determine the percentage of TAR 1 that is
exported as fillets (as opposed to a less-processed state), but if it is significant, then there
would be substantial shore-based value-added for the TAR 1 catch.
123
MFish notes that there is significant domestic market for tarakihi but has little information
on the value of this to the commercial sector. However, given the returns per kilo overseas
MFish concludes that it is a lucrative market.
124
The TACC limit reductions proposed under Option 1c will have a direct economic effect on
industry participants. Applying the port price ($2.00/kg for 2005/06) and average export
price ($5.58/kg in 2006), the TACC reduction under Option 1c (to 1329 tonnes) provides an
expected gross landed value of $3.44 million and export value of $2.65 million. This
represents a reduction of 5% compared to Option 1a (this presumes the full TACC was
caught – however, the TACC has been over caught by about 5% caught over the past 10
years.
125
The increase in the TACC proposed through Options 2 and 3 has the potential to reduce
deemed value payments. These have already been described in the report. The option that
provides the greatest TACC increase (option 3b) is likely to result in the greatest reduction
in deemed value payment and hence the greatest benefit to the commercial entities.
Social and Cultural wellbeing and factors
126
Catch reductions can have social implications when employment opportunities for catching
and processing staff are reduced. The information MFish has on the impact on employment
that might arise from option 1c are unknown. Conversely any of the options that propose
increases in the TACC will likely result in social and cultural benefits.
127
The greater the increase in the TACC the greater the economic benefits from the proposal.
These benefits are likely to result in increased flow-on social and economic benefits to the
associated industries and the community. To be of greatest benefit, the TAC (and any
corresponding TACC) increases needs to be sustainable in order to provide longer term
benefits. All the options proposed in this paper are considered to be sustainable, however
due to a lack of a stock assessment, it should be recognised that there is increasing risk with
the larger TAC and TACC proposals.
128
Tarakihi is an important recreational resource, and is actively targeted in many areas. Both
the 1996 and 2000/01 recreational harvest surveys recorded TAR 1 is the most important
tarakihi fishery by weight of catch. It was also estimated to be the 4th most important
recreational fishery nationally (of any fish species, by weight) in the 1996 recreational
harvest survey and 9th most important in the 1999/2000 survey.
315 of 397
129
Based upon information provided by recreational fishers, the East Northland and Bay of
Plenty areas are important areas to recreational fishers in TAR 1. In contrast, discussions
with recreational fishers in 2003 did not reveal that there was much target fishing for
tarakihi on the west coast of TAR 1.
130
MFish currently has no information to suggest that the existing allowance for the
recreational sector is constraining recreational fishers’ interests in TAR 1. Option 1b
reduces the recreational allowance but MFish has no data that supports whether or not this
would limit the current catch by the recreational sector.
131
As stated earlier, little is known about the extent of customary catch of tarakihi. While
tarakihi is known to have value as a customary food source, recent and current harvest
levels are unknown.
132
In considering the options presented in this paper, is it important to ensure that any of the
options that propose TACC increases do not reduce the social and cultural benefits of the
fishery to recreational or cultural interests. Given the level of the proposed increases, it is
considered that none of the options prose such a risk. However, again it is noted that the
there is a lack of information on TAR 1 and that the greater increases prose a greater level
of risk.
133
Sections 9(a): provides that decision makers must take into account the principle that
associated or dependent species (non-harvested species) should be maintained above a level
that ensures their long-term viability. There are no known interactions between the existing
TAR 1 fishery and non-harvested species that are of concern or specific to the fishery. The
fishery does not dispose of any significant amount of fish waste or offal at sea, so the
potential for interactions with seabirds is reduced. The National Plan of Action to Reduce
the Incidental By-Catch of Seabirds in New Zealand Fisheries (April 2004) document does
not list tarakihi as one of the fisheries with seabird interactions that are of concern. The
options proposed in this paper do not contemplate increased fishing beyond recent levels.
134
Section 9(b): provides that decision makers must take into account the principle that the
biological diversity of the aquatic environment should be maintained. MFish notes that an
area off Spirits Bay in the far north is closed to trawling generally as a measure to avoid the
adverse effects of fishing on the unique biodiversity there. There are no other known
impacts on biodiversity that would be specific to the TAR 1 trawl fishery. Reporting of
bycatch and protected species will allow for information to be collected to advance our
knowledge of potential impacts.
135
Section 9(c): provides that decision makers must take into account the principle that
habitats of particular significance to fisheries management should be protected. No habitats
of particular significance to fisheries management have been identified that might be
affected by trawling for tarakihi in TAR 1.
136
Section 10: The information principles of the Act require that decisions be based on the best
available information, taking into account any uncertainty in that information, and applying
caution when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate. Section 10 also requires
that you take into account the principle that the absence or uncertainty of information should
not be used as a reason to postpone, or fail to take, any measure to achieve the purpose of
the Act. MFish considers that the information used to support the TAR 1 proposals is the
316 of 397
best currently available. It is also recognised that TAR 1 is an information poor fishery and
that the options proposed meet the requirement of this section.
137
Estimates of the current biomass and the level that will produce MSY for TAR 1 are not
currently available. The proposed management options are based largely on information
derived from:
•
recent and current commercial catches
•
CPUE indices from commercial reporting
•
estimates of recreational catch from the 1996 and 2000/01 recreational
harvest surveys.
138
CPUE indices provide an indicator of relative abundance, but are inadequate to determine
absolute stock size. Relatively stable CPUE indices suggest that the underlying stock
biomass has not changed under recent and current catch levels, but actual stock size remains
unknown at this time.
139
In the absence of a stock assessment, the catch history and CPUE indices provide the best
available information on which to base considerations of opportunities and risks to TAR 1.
However, the absence of estimates of biomass and MSY suggest caution when setting the
TAC. The importance of TAR 1 as a shared fishery is also a consideration in terms of
Section 10, in that a significant increase for one sector may impede the proper utilisation of
the fishery by other sectors.
140
Section 11(1)(a): Before varying the TAC for TAR1, you must take into account any
effects of fishing on any stock and the aquatic environment. The commercial fishery for
tarakihi is largely a target trawl fishery but tarakihi are also in substantial quantities as a bycatch of target trawling for other inshore species including snapper. Tarakihi are also taken
by other commercial fishing methods. Bottom trawl gear affects the physical structure of the
substrate and possibly the benthic community structure. Target trawling occurs throughout
TAR 1, largely between the 100 and 200 metre depth contours. Due to ease of catch and
proximity to processors, commercial fishers are likely to continue fishing in the same
fishing grounds, and so effects are likely to be restricted to areas that have been trawled
previously. Despite that, fishing might still have adverse effects. The extent of those effects
is not known. Nevertheless, MFish considers that restricting any adverse effects of fishing
to existing trawl areas is not inconsistent with the obligation to provide for the utilisation of
fishery resources while ensuring sustainability. No other information about any effects of
fishing on any stock or on the aquatic environment is considered relevant to the
consideration of sustainability measures for TAR 1 at this time. Recreational and customary
fishers general use line methods which are non destructive to bottom environments.
141
Section 11(1)(b): Before varying the TAC for TAR 1, you must take into account any
existing controls that apply to the stock. Apart from the existing TAC, TACC, and
allowances, other important existing fisheries management controls for TAR 1 include the
following:
•
A minimum legal size of 25 cm fork length and a minimum net mesh size of 100
mm apply in TAR 1 for both commercial and non-commercial fishers;
317 of 397
•
Tarakihi is one of the species that is subject to the recreational fishing combined
finfish daily bag limit of 20 fish in the Auckland and Kermadec Fishery
Management Areas; and
•
Trawling is prohibited by fisheries regulation in large areas of the inshore zone
within TAR 1. These areas include the waters in and adjacent to specified
harbours, bays, and the inner Hauraki Gulf (see the Fisheries (Auckland and
Kermadec Areas Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986). On the west coast,
trawling is excluded within 1 nm of the coast from Tirua Point northwards to
Scott Point at the northern end of 90 Mile Beach. At harbour entrances and major
river mouths on the west coast, trawling is also excluded from ‘bubbles’ of a 2
nm radius around the entrances/mouths. In the Bay of Plenty, trawling is
excluded from an area within 2 nm of the coast from Homunga Bay to Cape
Runaway. However, MFish considers that most of these areas are not prime
habitat for tarakihi, which is generally found at depths of 100-200 metres.
142
Section 11(1)(c): Before varying the TAC for TAR 1, you must take into account the
natural variability of the stock. Tarakihi are a relatively long-lived species, such species
tend not to be prone to significant fluctuations in biomass. The 2007 Plenary report states
that good recruitment was a likely reason for an increase in the CPUE index for the Bay of
Plenty area in 2000-01. Whilst some variability in recruitment is likely to occur, the biomass
indices used by MFish to determine population size are considered robust and natural
variability is unlikely to be a significant issue in determining an appropriate level for the
TAC. The options proposed are appropriate in the context of this section
143
Sections 11(2)(a) and 11(2)(b): Before varying the TAC for TAR 1, you must have regard
to any provisions of any regional policy or plan under the Resource Management Act 1991
and any management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1997 that apply to the
coastal marine area and you consider relevant. TAR 1 incorporates parts of four regional
council areas and four Department of Conservation conservancies. There are no provisions
applicable to the coastal marine area known to exist in any policy statement or plan under
the Resource Management Act 1991, or any management strategy or plan under the
Conservation Act 1987, that are relevant to the setting or varying of any sustainability
measure for TAR 1.
144
Section 11(2)(c): Before varying the TAC for TAR 1, you have regard to sections 7 and 8
of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act that apply to the coastal marine area and you consider
relevant. Relatively little target fishing for tarakihi is known to occur within the boundaries
of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park (HGMP), and the HGMP forms only a small proportion of
TAR 1. Nevertheless, the proposals are considered to be consistent with the considerations
set out in sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA). Sections 7
and 8 of the HGMPA relate to the consideration of the social, economic cultural and
recreational wellbeing of people of the Hauraki Gulf and of New Zealand generally. The
proposed TAC options seek to provide for levels of utilisation that will enable people to
derive social, economic, cultural and recreational wellbeing from the fishery to varying
degrees (depending on the option) while ensuring the sustainability of the broader stock.
Those considerations are discussed in more detail in the body of the paper.
145
Sections 11(2A)(a) and 11(2A)(c): Before varying the TAC for TAR 1, you must take into
account the effects of any conservation services or fisheries services and any decisions not
318 of 397
to require conservation or fisheries services. The review of the TAC and associated
allowances for TAR 1 is independent of any conservation services. MFish does not consider
that existing or proposed services materially affect a TAC review for TAR 1. No decision
has been made not to require a service that would be relevant to the TAR 1 fishery.
146
Section 11(2A)(b): Before varying the TAC for TAR 1, you must take account of any
relevant fisheries plans. There are no approved fisheries plans relevant to TAR 1. A
fisheries plan could provide another mechanism through which to explore the potential of
the TAR 1 fishery and implement sustainability measures. MFish has recently stated that it
intends all fish stocks to be incorporated into fisheries plans over the next five years. It is
likely that TAR 1 would be included in one (or several) of the northern finfish plans.
However, at present no such plan has been completed.
147
Sections 21 specifies a number of matters that must be taken into account when setting or
varying a TACC. The IPP and this paper include three options for TAC settings for TAR 1.
Within each of these TAC options, the paper proposes three sub-options that consider a
variety of allocation options, including proportional and non proportional options in favour
of the commercial and non-commercial sectors. The social, cultural and economic costs and
benefits have been assessed in each case.
148
Section 21(4) requires that any mätaitai reserve or closure/restriction under s 186A to
facilitate customary fishing be taken into account. One mätaitai reserve exists in TAR 1 at
Raukokere however, MFish considers that this reserve has little if any effect on the options
proposed for TAR 1. Three areas are subject to section 186A closures under the customary
fishing provisions of the Act, at Ohiwa Harbour (green-lipped mussels closure), Mount
Maunganui (green-lipped mussels closure), and Kaipara Harbour (scallops closure).
Tarakihi are unlikely to be found within the area of any of these closures, however, MFish
considers such small closures also have little if any effect on the options proposed for
TAR 1.
149
Section 21(5) requires that any regulations to prohibit fishing made under s 311 be taken
into account when setting allowances for recreational interests. No restrictions have been
placed on commercial fishing in any area within the TAR 1 under section 311.
319 of 397
320 of 397
SCHOOL SHARK (SCH 1) - FINAL ADVICE
Figure 1: QMAs for SCH 1 and other school shark stocks
Executive Summary
1
This paper provides final advice to you on:
a) setting the total allowable catch (TAC) for SCH 1 under section 13(2)(a) of the
Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act); then
b) setting the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) under section 20 of the Act after
allowing for customary and recreational fisheries, and other sources of fishery-related
mortality, as required by section 21 of the Act.
2
No TAC is currently set for this stock, though a TACC of 668.47 tonnes has been in place
since 1986. Commercial stakeholder organisations (CSOs) applied for this TACC to be
increased under an adaptive management program (AMP) 76 earlier this year. After
confirmation that MFish was not accepting new AMP applications, the Northern Fisheries
Management Stakeholder Company Ltd (Northern Fisheries) requested that a TACC
increase be considered in the October 2007 sustainability round.
3
In the Initial Position Paper (IPP), released for consultation on 15 June 2007, MFish
proposed to set a TAC for SCH 1 at a level that either: reflects the current TACC of 668.47
tonnes and estimates of non-commercial catches (option 1); or is above the current limits to
76
Adaptive management programmes are programmes under which commercial catch limits are increased in return for
commercial fishers recording far more detailed information on things like fishing locations, fishing effort and size of
fish caught. This information is then used to develop understanding of the status and biology of the stock concerned.
321 of 397
reflect commercial landings in the past five years (27 tonne increase, option 2) or the past
ten years (78 tonne increase, option 3).
4
Option 1 would, most likely, if combined with an increase in the deemed value for the
stock, better constrain commercial fishing of SCH 1 to the level of the current TACC. This
option places the greatest weight on the uncertainty of the current information regarding
stock status and takes the most cautious approach in favour of sustainability. This option
minimises the risk that the stock will not be maintained at or above BMSY.
5
Options 2 and 3 would set a TAC that reflects past commercial catches and provides for
commercial catches above the current level of the TACC. Under option 2, commercial
catches would most likely remain at about their recent level, although higher than in the
2005/06 fishing year, and deemed value payments would be reduced. Under option 3,
commercial catches would most likely increase above their recent level, providing a
utilisation opportunity. These options place more weight on short-term utilisation.
Although increasing the TAC to reflect past commercial catches is not likely to pose a
sustainability risk in the short-term, the longer term sustainability risks are unknown and are
higher than for option 1. A higher TAC increases the risk that the stock will not be
maintained at or above BMSY.
6
Commercial landings of SCH 1 were consistently above the TACC from 1995/96 to
2004/05 (inclusive). The average of landings in the last five years is significantly lower
than the average of landings in the last 5-10 years, probably due to the effect of deemed
values. Landings fell below the TACC in 2005/06, at least partially because a reduction in
the SNA 8 TACC led to less school shark being taken as bycatch in the snapper fishery.
Commercial respondents to the IPP considered that there are additional utilisation
opportunities in the SCH 1 fishery.
7
There are inherent sustainability risks associated with fishing for school shark and gaps in
our knowledge about the SCH 1 stock. We do not have any estimates of school shark
biomass. School shark is a species that is late maturing, slow growing with low fecundity
and productivity and it is predicted to have a slow rate of recovery from over-fishing
(rebound potential). The rebound potential of school shark from fishing pressure has been
assessed as amongst the lowest for shark species. School shark around New Zealand is
considered to be a single biological stock so any changes in catch limits for one stock area
are likely to affect the stock as a whole. Recreational and environmental respondents
consider that the lack of knowledge about the stock and the vulnerability of school shark to
fishing pressure mean that the TACC should not be increased.
8
New research data on school shark CPUE will be available later this year although it is
uncertain how reliable this new information will be. Unfortunately this research data will
not be available in time to inform your decision this year.
9
The habitat of school shark in SCH 1 overlaps with the habitat of Maui’s dolphin. The IPP
noted that increasing the SCH 1 TACC could increase the risk of Maui’s dolphin interaction
with fishing gear. Commercial respondents did not agree that any increased TACC would
affect Maui’s dolphin and thought that any risk of increased interaction with Maui’s dolphin
would be more appropriately dealt with through the joint MFish/Department of
Conservation Threat Management Plan to mitigate the risks to Maui’s dolphin. They argue
that Maui’s dolphin do not currently interact with commercial fishing operations in SCH 1
due to a combination of spatial separation and current regulations.
322 of 397
10
Environmental respondents noted that much of the quota for school shark is caught in set
nets, which poses particular problems for non-target bycatch species such as dolphins and
called for fishing restrictions within the range of Maui’s dolphin. MFish does not consider
that the setting of a TAC for this one stock is the best way to deal with fishing-related
threats to Maui’s dolphin. Options set out in the Threat Management Plan will apply to
school shark fisheries as well as to other fisheries in the range of Maui’s dolphin.
11
In the IPP, MFish proposed to set allowances for recreational and customary fishing and
other fishing-related mortality based on estimates of existing catches. MFish considers that
it may be appropriate in this case, if you were to increase the SCH 1 TAC above the level
envisaged in option 1, to allocate that increase entirely to the TACC. This is because the
TAC is being set for the first time, there are no existing customary or recreational
allowances to increase, and the estimates of current recreational and customary catch are
considered to provide in full for the catches of those sectors.
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
12
The IPP proposed the following options:
Table 1: SCH 1 management options (tonnes)
Option
Allowance
Approach
TAC
Recreational
Allowance
Customary
Allowance
Other fishing
related
mortality
TACC
Option 1.
TAC set at
current limits
Not
applicable
866
66
99
33
668.47
Proportional
893
68
102
34
689
Nonproportional
893
66
99
35
693
Proportional
944
72
108
36
728
Nonproportional
944
66
99
37
742
Option 2.
TAC increase
of 27 tonnes
Option 3.
TAC increase
of 78 tonnes
h) Option one: current TACC plus allowances. Option 1 proposed that the TAC for SCH 1
be set at 866 tonnes. This option would provide for the existing TACC of 668.47 tonnes,
plus allowances for customary and recreational fishing and other fishing-related
mortality. This option was supported by ECO, NZ Big Game Fishing Council, NZ
Recreational Fishing Council, Nga Hapu o Te Uru and Forest & Bird.
i) Option two: increase by level of average commercial catches above the TACC in the past
5 years. Option 2 proposed that the TAC for SCH 1 be set at 893 tonnes, an increase of
27 tonnes above option 1. A TAC of 893 tonnes would reflect the average reported
commercial landings in the past five years, plus allowances for customary and
recreational fishing and other fishing-related mortality. Within this option you may
choose to allocate the increase proportionally to all sectors or non-proportionally in
323 of 397
favour of one sector. This option was supported by Te Runanga o Te Rarawa, who
supported a proportional allocation of the increase.
j) Option three: increase by level of average commercial catches above the TACC in the
past 10 years. Option 3 proposed that the TAC for SCH 1 be set at 944 tonnes, an
increase of 78 tonnes above option 1. A TAC of 944 tonnes would reflect the average
reported commercial landings in the past ten years, plus allowances for customary and
recreational fishing and other fishing-related mortality. Within this option you may
choose to allocate the increase proportionally to all sectors or non-proportionally in
favour of one sector. No respondent supported this option. However, Sanford Ltd and
Northern Fisheries Stakeholder Management Company Ltd, supported by SeaFIC,
advised that they would support an altered option three with a TACC increase of 100
tonnes.
Final Proposal
13
The options available for consideration are unchanged from the IPP:
a)
AGREE to:
Option 1: Set the SCH 1 TAC at 866 tonnes with the TACC (unchanged) at
668.47 tonnes and allowances of 99 tonnes for customary, 66 tonnes for
recreational and 33 tonnes for other fishing-related mortality.
OR
b)
AGREE to:
Option 2: Set the SCH 1 TAC at 893 tonnes;
AND
Allocate the TAC proportionally, with the TACC set at 689 tonnes (21 tonne
increase), and allowances of 102 tonnes for customary fishing, 68 tonnes for
recreational fishing and 34 tonnes for other fishing-related mortality;
OR
Allocate the TAC non-proportionally with the TACC set at 693 tonnes (25
tonne increase), and allowances of 99 tonnes for customary fishing, 66
tonnes for recreational fishing and 35 tonnes for other fishing-related
mortality.
OR
c)
AGREE to:
Option 3: Set the SCH 1 TAC at 944 tonnes;
AND
Allocate the TAC proportionally with the TACC set at 728 tonnes (60 tonne
324 of 397
increase), and allowances of 108 tonnes for customary fishing, 72 tonnes for
recreational fishing and 36 tonnes for other fishing-related mortality;
OR
Allocate the TAC non-proportionally with the TACC set at 742 tonnes (74
tonne increase), and allowances of 99 tonnes for customary fishing, 66 tonnes
for recreational fishing and 37 tonnes for other fishing-related mortality.
14
The options above are presented for your consideration. It is open to you to choose an
alternative option that you believe is appropriate. However if you wish to consider TAC
and TACC options outside the range proposed in the IPP, MFish considers further
consultation would be required with stakeholders before a decision on such measures could
be taken. As a consequence, such measures could not be implemented prior to the
commencement of the 1 October 2007/8 fishing year. MFish is happy to provide you with
additional advice on these options should you wish to consider these matters further.
Consultation
15
Your decision whether or not to adjust the TAC for SCH 1 is a decision under section
13(2)(a) of the Act and therefore the consultation requirements of section 12 apply.
16
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of
those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the
aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Maori, environmental, commercial,
and recreational interests. Further, provision was made for the input and participation of
tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in the stock or an interest in the effects of
fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned, having particular regard to
Kaitiakitanga.
17
In addition, analysts from MFish’s Auckland office presented the SCH 1 IPP at meetings of
the Te Hiku o Te Ika (Far North Regional Iwi Forum), Mai I Nga Kuri a Wharei ki Tihirau
(Bay of Plenty Regional Iwi Forum) and Nga Hapu o Te Uru (western Tainui Regional Iwi
Forum). These forum presentations provided members of the forums with the opportunity
to discuss these issues in depth with MFish staff and to lodge a submission if they felt it
necessary.
Submissions Received
18
Submissions regarding this proposal were received from:
• Environmental and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand (ECO)
• New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council (NZBGFC)
• New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC)
• Nga Hapu o Te Uru (NHOTU)
325 of 397
• Northern Fisheries Management Stakeholder Company Ltd. (Northern Stakeholder
Group)
• Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand (Forest & Bird)
• Sanford Ltd. (Sanford)
• Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC)
• Te Runanga o Te Rarawa (Te Rarawa).
Key Issues Raised
Absence of an Adaptive Management Programme proposal
Stakeholder view
19
Commercial respondents were disappointed that the range of options presented in the IPP
did not include a Northern Stakeholder Group proposal (made prior to IPP drafting) for a
167 tonne TACC increase under an AMP. This proposal included components for
increasing collection of data about the fishery such as a logbook programme.
MFish response
20
The Northern Stakeholder Group’s proposal was not included in the IPP as MFish had
previously advised stakeholders that AMP applications were not being considered. Further,
MFish is not aware of any information to suggest that an increase to the TAC sufficient to
accommodate a 167 tonne increase to the TACC would be sustainable. MFish considers
that a TAC increase of that size would pose an unacceptably high risk that the stock will not
be maintained at or above BMSY. MFish also considers that discussions of data collection in
a fishery would be better addressed through a fisheries plan.
Proposal for a 100 tonne TACC increase
Stakeholder view
21
Commercial respondents now propose a TACC increase of 100 tonnes. They consider that:
• the fishery could be managed in a similar fashion to an AMP through an industry-led,
structured fisheries plan
• this would have provided opportunity for incorporating voluntary management measures
to address shark biological concerns (such as pupping females in the Kaipara Harbour)
and catch spreading and effort to address environmental and spatial depletion concerns
• there are utilisation opportunities available in the SCH 1 fishery
• no real increases in commercial catch above what has been caught in recent years are
envisaged under options 1 and 2, indeed commercial catches may fall under option 1 if
deemed values are increased.
326 of 397
• option 3 provides for no real increase in commercial catch if 10-year commercial catch
figures are used
• it is unlikely that the adverse impacts of increasing the TACC that were discussed in the
IPP will occur as the options provide for no real increase in the commercial catch levels
above what has been caught in the past 5-10 fishing years.
MFish response
22
MFish notes that option 1 is not intended to provide for increased commercial catches but to
provide an option for retaining the current TACC. Options 2 and 3 provide for increased
TACCs based on past commercial catches of school shark. There is no information to
justify TAC increases above the levels of options 2 and 3. As catches at the levels
envisaged in these options have been taken relatively regularly in the past, it may be that
setting the TAC at these levels will not increase any adverse impacts of fishing for school
shark. However, a higher TAC increases the risk. Also, given the SNA 8 TAC reduction,
the amount of SCH 1 taken as trawl bycatch may reduce while the amount taken by targeted
set-net fishing may increase.
Opposition to any TACC increase
Stakeholder view
23
Non-commercial respondents saw no justification for increasing the TACC for a range of
reasons. These included:
• the biological characteristics of the species and its vulnerability to fishing pressure
• the lack of information about the species other than the level of past commercial overcatch
• the fact that new research is currently being developed on school shark CPUE which will
be available later in 2007, but too late to inform this decision
• the risk that increasing the TACC based on catch in excess of quota and “chronic
deeming” rewards overfishing and provides the wrong incentives to commercial fishers
• the lack of any guarantee that increasing the TACC would stop the commercial overcatch – commercial fishers may just catch in excess of the higher TACC
• the estimate of combined Maximum Constant Yield (MCY) for most school shark stocks
(SCH 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8) in New Zealand being just 325 tonnes, much lower than the 2434
tonne combined TACC for these stocks
• the risks of increased fishing for school shark on non-target by-catch species such as
dolphins and sea-birds.
MFish response
24
MFish considers that the catch data is part of the best available information on SCH 1.
MFish also considers that setting a TAC is not about rewarding overfishing but about setting
327 of 397
a catch limit that meets the requirements of the Act and is sustainable. MFish notes that the
MCY data referred to was developed in 1989 using data from 1955 to 1975, when the
fishery was not fully developed, and that this method has been superseded in this fishery by
CPUE studies. The biological risks and bycatch risks of fishing for school shark were taken
into account when options 1 – 3 were developed. Also, as options 2 and 3 reflect past
catches the risks of those options may not be significantly different from those that already
exist in the fishery.
Rationale for Management Options
Current and recent commercial catches
25
Commercial stakeholders have advised that they believe there are utilisation opportunities in
the SCH 1 fishery. Commercial stakeholder organisations (CSOs) applied for this TACC to
be increased under an adaptive management program (AMP) earlier this year. After
confirmation that MFish was not accepting new AMP applications, the Northern Fisheries
Management Stakeholder Company Ltd (Northern Fisheries) requested that a TACC
increase be considered in the October 2007 sustainability round.
26
Commercial landings of SCH 1 have exceeded the TACC in all fishing years since 1994/95
except for 2005/06 (see Figure 2). The extent of overcatch has reduced since 2001,
constrained by deemed values introduced under the Fisheries Act 1996.
Figure 2: SCH1 landings and TACC 1983/84 – 2005/06
1,200
Landings (t)
TACC
800
600
400
200
Fishing Year
328 of 397
2005/06
2003/04
2001/02
1999/00
1997/98
1995/96
1993/94
1991/92
1989/90
1987/88
1985/86
0
1983/84
Landings (tonnes)
1,000
27
Advice from commercial stakeholders suggests that the fall in landings in 2005/06 was
because the SNA 8 TACC reduction in 2005/06 led to less school shark being taken as
bycatch in the snapper fishery. MFish data 77 partially support this by showing that catches
of SCH 1 when snapper was the target species fell by 27 tonnes between 2004/05 and
2005/06 while the total fall in SCH 1 landings was 60 tonnes.
28
The commercial sector has reported difficulties in securing sufficient annual catch
entitlement (ACE) to cover all of their school shark catch. Analysis of deemed value
payments since 2003 shows that almost all fishers and fishing companies who made
substantial deemed value payments for SCH 1 also held substantial amounts of ACE for
SCH 1. Therefore, it does not appear that the overcatch is due to people deliberately fishing
for SCH 1 without holding ACE. Rather, the overcatch appears to be mainly caught by
those who have substantial ACE holdings, but not enough to cover their SCH 1 catch. Any
increase in the TACC would increase the amount of ACE available.
29
MFish data 78 suggest that the majority of SCH 1 is taken as a bycatch, though it is also a
target species of some importance. These data also suggest that catches of SCH 1 are
roughly evenly split between trawl, set-net and bottom long line fisheries and around 30%
of the total SCH 1 catch is generally taken on the east coast with around 70% on the west
coast.
30
Commercial stakeholders have suggested that the current TACC for SCH 1 is constraining
the target SCH 1 fishery as fishers often only have sufficient ACE to cover bycatch.
Increasing the TACC may therefore increase target fisheries for school shark using set nets
and bottom long-lines.
Stock status and biological characteristics
Status of the SCH 1 stock
31
Recreational and environmental respondents consider that the lack of knowledge about the
stock and the vulnerability of school shark to fishing pressure mean that the TACC should
not be increased.
32
The SCH 1 TACC was originally set at half the level of the catch taken in 1983. This was
because of apparently declining catch rates and concern about the low productivity of the
species. However, SCH 1 catches and the TACCs have increased since 1986/87.
33
The 2007 School Shark Plenary 79 reported that there are no indications that current catches
are not sustainable in the short-term. However, it is not known whether recent catch levels
or the current TACCs are sustainable in the long-term, or if they are at levels that will allow
the stocks to move towards a size that will support the MSY.
77
These data are generated from catch effort reports and will not include all catches of SCH 1 where taken as a
bycatch. Therefore, these data are uncertain. However, they are useful for indicative purposes.
78
These data are generated from catch effort reports (for fishing years 2001/02 to 2005/06) and will not include all
catches of SCH 1 where taken as a bycatch. They are therefore uncertain and probably over-estimate the amount of
SCH 1 which is taken as a target species. However, they are useful for indicative purposes.
79
This document summarises the conclusions and recommendations of scientists on the Inshore Working Group
relating to school shark fisheries in New Zealand
329 of 397
34
No estimates of current absolute biomass are available for any SCH stock. Estimates of
relative abundance are based on CPUE analyses, using catches up to and including the
2001/02 fishing year 80. CPUE analysis using more recent data is due to become available
later in 2007, although too late to inform your decision this year. MFish notes that trends in
targeted CPUE time series can be unreliable for school shark populations 81 and that CPUE
indices for school shark are characterised by high uncertainty. It has been recommended that
because of the mobility of school sharks, New Zealand wide trends in landings or CPUE
should take precedence over regional trends4. No trends were found that could be
interpreted as a change in abundance for the New Zealand stock as a whole.
35
Nevertheless, CPUE analyses have produced indices that are flat or declining around the
North Island (including SCH 1) and flat or increasing around the South Island. Although
abundance of South Island fish stocks appeared to have increased, there is a view that this
pattern may be due to a southward displacement of North Island fish 82.
School shark biology
36
Results of tagging studies suggest that school shark around New Zealand is a single
biological stock 83. The majority of tagged fish have been recaptured in the same QMA in
which they were released. However, some have been recaptured after large scale, and even
trans-Tasman, movements.
37
School shark is a relatively slow growing, late maturing species with low fecundity. Age at
maturity has been estimated at 12-17 years for males and 13-15 years for females. Breeding
occurs once every two or three years. These factors suggest that the stock is less productive
and hence more susceptible to overfishing than many other fisheries, including most target
fisheries of which SCH 1 is a bycatch.
38
A study of the productivity of shark stocks and their ability to recover from fishing pressure
found that the “rebound ability” (resilience) of school shark was one of the lowest among
shark species and that any recovery of school shark from fishing pressure would be slow.
Shark species have a strong relationship between population size and recruitment, meaning
that if the population declines, recruitment is likely to become progressively less successful.
39
School shark as a species is particularly vulnerable to over-fishing if the older, larger and
more productive females are removed from the stock. Modelling work undertaken on the
Australian school shark population indicates that it is important to protect the older, larger
female school sharks during their years of greatest productivity.
40
These biological characteristics support setting a cautious TAC that would have a higher
probability of ensuring sustainability.
80
Ayers, D, Paul, L.J., Sanders, B.M. 2004. Estimation of catch per unit effort analyses for school shark (Galeorhinus
galeus) from bycatch and target fisheries in New Zealand, 1989-90 to 2001-02. .New Zealand Fisheries Assessment
Report 2006/26. 121 p.
81
Bradford, E. (2001). Standardised catch rate indices for New Zealand school shark, Galeorhinus galeus, in New
Zealand, 1989–90 to 1998–99. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2001/33. 75 p.
82
Ayers, D, Paul, L.J., Sanders, B.M. 2004. Estimation of catch per unit effort analyses for school shark (Galeorhinus
galeus) from bycatch and target fisheries in New Zealand, 1989-90 to 2001-02. .New Zealand Fisheries Assessment
Report 2006/26. 121 p.
83
Stock boundaries based on the current QMAs, are essentially in place to prevent localised depletion. However, there
are no definitive data on which to base changes to the stock boundaries currently used for management purposes.
330 of 397
Adaptive Management Programmes
41
Other school shark stocks in the South Island and the south-west coast of the North Island
have had TACC increases of 5% (SCH 5) and 20% (SCH 3, 7 & 8) under AMPs. As school
shark around New Zealand is considered to be a single biological stock, any changes to the
TACCs of school shark stocks are likely to impact both on abundance within the QMA
where the TACC was increased and the wider stock.
42
One environmental respondent argued that, as school shark is considered to be a single
biological stock around New Zealand, the impacts of the AMP increases in other stocks on
the whole national stock should be assessed before the SCH 1 TACC is changed. MFish
considers that all available information on school shark has been assessed by the Inshore
Working Group (IWG) and the conclusions of the IWG form part of the basis of this paper.
Other potential impacts of fishing for SCH 1
Maui’s dolphin
43
MFish data, which is somewhat uncertain but is the best available, suggest that in the past
five fishing years around 40% of the SCH 1 caught has been taken within the probable
range of Maui’s dolphin. This includes 36% of SCH 1 taken by trawl and 17% of SCH 1
taken by set-net. Commercial stakeholders have reported that the current TACC is
constraining commercial target set-netting for SCH 1. The IPP noted that increasing the
TACC could result in increased targeting of SCH 1 by set-net, a method considered to be a
significant threat to Maui’s dolphin and could therefore increase the risk of Maui’s dolphin
interaction with fishing gear. However, it is entirely possible that any increased fishing
effort would occur outside of the range of Maui’s dolphin.
44
Commercial respondents did not agree that any increased TACC would impact on Maui’s
dolphin and thought that any risk of increased interaction with Maui’s dolphin would be
more appropriately dealt with through the Threat Management Plan. They argue that
Maui’s dolphin do not currently interact with commercial fishing operations in SCH 1 due
to a combination of spatial separation and current regulations.
45
Environmental respondents noted that much of the quota for school shark is caught in set
nets, which poses particular problems for non-target bycatch species such as dolphins and
called for fishing restrictions within the range of Maui’s dolphin.
46
MFish does not consider that the setting of a TAC for this one stock is the best way to deal
with fishing-related threats to Maui’s dolphin. Options set out in the Threat Management
Plan, currently out for consultation, will apply to school shark fisheries as well as to other
fisheries in the range of Maui’s dolphin. However, in setting the TAC, you should be aware
of the risk (which MFish cannot quantify and on which stakeholders have differing views)
that fishing for school shark may have an effect on Maui’s dolphin.
331 of 397
Assessment of Management Options
Total Allowable Catch
47
MFish proposes to set a TAC for SCH 1 under section 13(2)(a) of the Act. In managing a
stock under section 13(2)(a) you must, in setting the TAC, maintain the stock at or above a
level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) 84, having regard to the
interdependence of stocks. However, estimates of current biomass for SCH 1 or any other
school shark stocks are unavailable.
48
In the absence of reliable biomass and MSY estimates for SCH 1, MFish proposes to set the
TAC based on assessment of past and current catches of each sector and an estimate of other
fishing-related mortality. MFish considers that the relatively stable level of commercial
catches and the estimates of non-commercial catches constitute the best available
information for considering the TAC for SCH 1. However, it should be noted that catches
above a TACC do not necessarily indicate increased abundance in the stock. Indeed, a
stock can have stable catches even when it is below the biomass level that will produce the
MSY.
49
Three options have been proposed for setting the TAC. The first represents existing
commercial catch limits plus estimates of non-commercial catches and other fishing-related
mortality. The other two options propose TACs that reflect recent and past commercial
landings, and provide increased utilisation opportunities in the fishery.
50
As the available information for SCH 1 is uncertain and inadequate, you should be cautious
when making your decision. Options 2 and 3 provide a progressively less cautious
approach regarding sustainability while providing for greater utilisation.
TAC Options
Option 1 – Current TACC plus allowances
51
Option 1 proposes that the TAC for SCH 1 be set at 866 tonnes. This option provides for
the existing TACC of 668.47 tonnes and estimates of current customary and recreational
catches and other fishing-related mortality. The current TACC for SCH 1 has been
consistently exceeded, with one exception, over the past 10 fishing years.
52
Under this option, no further utilisation opportunity would be provided in the fishery and, if
accompanied with increased deemed value for SCH 1, commercial landings may fall.
53
Setting the TAC at 866 tonnes should ensure that any sustainability and environmental risks
associated with the fishery are not increased. This option places the greatest weight on the
uncertainty of the current information regarding stock status and takes the most cautious
approach in favour of sustainability. Considering the uncertainties in the stock information,
this option provides the greatest certainty that, over the long term, SCH 1 will be managed
at or above BMSY.
84
The biomass that can produce the MSY is called the BMSY.
332 of 397
Option 2 – Increase in line with average commercial landings in past 5 years
54
Option 2 proposes that the TAC for SCH 1 be set at 893 tonnes, an increase of 27 tonnes
above option 1. A TAC of 893 tonnes reflects the average reported commercial landings in
the past five years, plus allowances for customary and recreational fishing and other fishingrelated mortality.
55
This option places more weight on short-term utilisation than option 1. Although increasing
the TAC to reflect the average commercial landings in the past 5 years is not thought likely
to pose a sustainability risk in the short-term, the longer term sustainability risks are
unknown. A higher TAC increases the risk that the stock will not be maintained at or above
BMSY.
56
The benefit of option 2 is that it provides for recent catches of school shark, above the
TACC, that are likely to have been taken as a bycatch in trawl fisheries targeted at other
finfish stocks.
Option 3 – Increase in line with average commercial landings in past 10 years
57
Option 3 proposes that the TAC for SCH 1 be set at 944 tonnes, an increase of 78 tonnes
above option 1. A TAC of 944 tonnes reflects the average reported commercial landings in
the past ten years, plus allowances for customary and recreational fishing and other fishingrelated mortality.
58
This option places the most weight on providing a short-term utilisation opportunity.
Considering the biological characteristics of the species (slow growth, late maturity, low
productivity, not predicted to recover quickly from fishing pressure), a TAC that is 78
tonnes higher than option 1 would increase the sustainability risks associated with fishing
for the stock. A higher TAC increases the risk that the stock will not be maintained at or
above BMSY. These risks are greater for this option than for options 1 and 2.
59
The benefit of this option is that it provides for increased utilisation opportunities in the
fishery and removes some constraints on commercial fishing for SCH 1.
TACC and Allowances
60
MFish proposes that you set the SCH 1 TACC under section 20 of the Act and, in doing
this, make allowances for Maori non-commercial fishing interests, recreational interests and
all other mortality to SCH 1 caused by fishing as required by section 21. In setting the
allowances and the TACC, you are required to consider the social, economic and cultural
wellbeing of the persons within each sector.
Customary allowance
61
Sharks in general are seen as one of the most important taonga species and anecdotal
information suggests that school shark is an important species for Maori. The fishery for
mangö (a term that collectively covers a number of shark species including school shark,
rig, and spiny dogfish) was traditionally important to many coastal communities who took
part in annual fishing expeditions during which large numbers of mangö were caught in
coastal bays and sun-dried on trees or wooden frames for storage. However, this fishery has
declined in recent decades and customary catches of shark species are reportedly smaller
than they used to be.
333 of 397
62
MFish has very little information on the level of customary catch of SCH 1. In recognition
of the importance of school shark to Maori, in the IPP MFish proposed to base the
customary allowance for SCH 1 at a level starting at 99 tonnes; this is 150% of the
recreational catch estimate.
63
No customary respondents have commented on the proposed 99 tonne allowance. One
recreational respondent suggested it may be too high. One commercial respondent was
disappointed at the lack of progress in estimating customary catch and argued that setting
the allowance at 150% of the already uncertain recreational catch estimate was not good
enough.
64
MFish agrees that progress needs to be made in estimating customary catch; however there
is no other information available to use for setting the SCH 1 customary allowance at this
stage. MFish has no information to suggest that 99 tonnes is too high and considers that it is
a reasonable customary allowance.
Recreational allowance
65
MFish proposes to set the recreational allowance on the basis of estimates of recreational
catches of SCH 1. A survey in 1996 estimated the recreational catch of SCH 1 to be around
46 tonnes per year. A survey in 1999/2000 estimated the recreational catch of SCH 1 to be
around 66 tonnes per year. The 1999/2000 survey is believed to be more accurate for
school shark. In the IPP, MFish proposed to set the recreational allowance for SCH 1 at a
level starting at 66 tonnes.
66
School shark is of importance to recreational fishers – of 123 species included in the
1999/2000 recreational catch survey, school shark had the 45th highest catch estimate (by
weight of catch).
67
Recreational respondents have submitted that the 66 tonne allowance seems adequate. They
also advised that recreational fishers do value school shark as a valuable food source and
also as a game fish, noting that they are targeted in competitions and are the largest fish that
many junior anglers have caught.
Allowance for other fishing-related mortality
68
Other fishing-related mortality is an estimate of the amount of the stock killed by but not
caught during a fishing operation (for example, where a fish escapes from a fishing net but
dies due to its encounter with the fishing gear). For all options in the IPP, MFish proposed
an allowance for other fishing-related mortality of 5% of the TACC. This approach is
consistent with allowances for other New Zealand school shark stocks. No views were
expressed by stakeholders on the proposals for setting the allowance for other fishingrelated mortality.
334 of 397
TACC
69
In Table 2 below, MFish has illustrated the potential economic impact of the TACC options
by considering the export and domestic economic value of school shark 85. The approach
used to develop this illustration involves inherent uncertainties and you should be aware that
the port price may not represent the actual wharf-side value of the fish. However, MFish
considers this coarse analysis illustrates the potential gains to industry in the short term
under the management options proposed.
Table 2: Value, by export price and port price, of each TACC option
Option
TACC
Export
value 86
Domestic
value 87
Total value
Increase in value
from current
TACC
Option 1. TAC set
at current limits
668.47
$726,841
$1,037,659
$1,764,500
$0
Option 2. TAC
increase of 25
tonnes
689
$749,163
$1,069,528
$1,818,691
$54,191
693
$753,513
$1,075,737
$1,829,250
$64,750
Option 3. TAC
increase of 74
tonnes
728
$791,569
$1,130,067
$1,921,636
$157,136
742
$806,791
$1,151,799
$1,958,591
$194,091
70
Deemed value payments have cost the commercial sector an average $101,000 in the past
five fishing years. An increased TACC should reduce the cost to the sector of paying
deemed values.
71
A TACC increase may have “downstream” impacts on related industries such as processing
and transport services. It could also improve the financial situation for coastal communities
that are dependent on the inshore fishing industry. However, if the TACC is set at the level
of current catches, then the downstream benefits may not be significant.
72
MFish notes that no commercial respondent to the consultation commented on this analysis
or suggested alternative figures.
Proportional vs. non-proportional approach
73
Proportionally allocating any increase in the TAC above the level envisaged in option 1
would, notionally, share the benefit of the increased catch level between all three sectors.
However, this would provide for non-commercial allowances that are above the estimate of
85
To determine how much SCH 1 is exported, MFish calculated that approximately 12.3% of all school shark TACCs
in New Zealand was exported in the 2005/06 fishing year and therefore assumed that 12.3% of SCH 1 was exported
with the remainder being sold domestically. MFish has assumed that this proportion will remain unchanged if the
TACC is increased. For each option, MFish then calculated the value of the proportion of the stock which is exported
(12.3%) against the export price and the value of the proportion of the stock which is sold domestically (87.7%) against
the port price to get an overall value for the stock.
86
Export value is $8.04/kg based export price of school shark for year ending December 2006.
87
Domestic value is $1.77 based on the port price of school shark in the 2005/06 fishing year.
335 of 397
current non-commercial catches. It is unlikely that any such additional allocation would be
fully utilised and thus best value may not be realised through proportional allocation.
74
Some commercial respondents argued that all TAC adjustments should be allocated
proportionally. Another commercial respondent did not consider that there was any
justification for increasing non-commercial allowances above the levels of estimated noncommercial catch. One customary respondent supported proportional increases.
75
MFish understands the position of those who support proportional changes to a TAC.
However, as noted in the IPP, MFish considers that it may be appropriate in this case to
allocate any increase in the SCH 1 TAC above the level envisaged in option 1, entirely to
the TACC for the following reasons:
a) The TAC is being set for the first time; there are no existing customary or recreational
allowances to increase.
b) The estimates of current recreational and customary catch are considered to provide in
full for the catches of those sectors and so an increase to recreational and customary
allowances may have no effect on those fisheries, particularly as the increases to the
allowances would be relatively small.
c) The TACs proposed in options 2 and 3 are based on recent commercial catches, plus
estimates of current non-commercial catches.
TACC and Allowances Options
76
The options are outlined in Table 3 below.
Table 3: SCH 1 management options (tonnes)
Option
Allowance
Approach
TAC
Recreational
Allowance
Customary
Allowance
Other fishing
related
mortality
TACC
Option 1.
TAC set at
current limits
Not
applicable
866
66
99
33
668.47
Proportional
893
68
102
34
689
Nonproportional
893
66
99
35
693
Proportional
944
72
108
36
728
Nonproportional
944
66
99
37
742
Option 2.
TAC increase
of 25 tonnes
Option 3.
TAC increase
of 74 tonnes
Other Management Controls
Deemed values
77
In setting a TAC, and potentially a new TACC, it is appropriate for you to consider revising
the deemed value level for school shark to help ensure that commercial catches do not
exceed the level of the TACC in future. Deemed values for a number of stocks, including
336 of 397
SCH 1, are being reviewed in the Review of the Deemed Value Rates for the October 2007
Sustainability Round section of this document.
Schedule 6 listing – protection of larger females
78
The results of Australian modelling work suggest that removing the larger females from the
population could be a significant risk to the sustainability of the stock.
79
Recreational respondents have suggested that school shark be added to Schedule 6 of the
Act so that large female school shark can be returned to the sea if they are likely to survive.
80
Schedule 6 provisions are best for fish that are typically alive when caught. MFish has little
information on the life status of school shark when caught by the main fishing methods; setnet or trawl. In the case of set-net, it is expected that much of the fish is dead when bought
to the boat. MFish consider that there is insufficient information for an accurate
determination as to whether adding SCH 1 to Schedule 6 is a useful management tool.
However, MFish will consider if further measures are necessary to protect pupping school
shark in the Kaipara Harbour.
Compliance
81
ACE for SCH 1 is often in short supply and can be unavailable to cover bycatch. Key
compliance concerns in a fishery with this type of problem relate to misreporting (of
weights, area and species) and dumping. In part, MFish relies on the incentives that quota
provides for commercial fishers to fish the stock in a sustainable manner. More proactively,
MFish will rely on monitoring and at sea surveillance to detect dumping. If the TACC is
increased, the availability of ACE should improve, helping to lessen these problems. If the
TACC is unchanged and deemed values are raised, the compliance problems may increase.
East-west coast stock split
82
Recreational respondents argued that the present QMA for SCH 1 is too large and
unmanageable and, given that the inshore fisheries plans and the new CPUE analysis will be
split between the east coast and west coast of the North Island, SCH 1 should be split into
east and west coast stocks.
83
MFish does not agree that the stock should be split between the east and west coast of the
northern North Island. School shark around New Zealand is considered to be a single
biological stock with the current QMAs in place essentially to prevent localised depletion.
MFish is not aware of any localised depletion issues that would justify splitting the east and
west coast of the northern North Island into separate school shark stocks, particularly given
the costs involved with such an activity.
Other Management Issues
Link to new management processes
84
A recreational respondent queried where the SCH 1 proposal fitted within the processes of
objective-based fisheries management, fisheries plans and fisheries standards. They also
called for MFish to clearly articulate the management objective for the fishery, how this is
337 of 397
supported by the best available information, which fisheries standards will be met and why
a better outcome could not be achieved as part of a fisheries plan process.
85
MFish notes that the fisheries plan process is only just beginning. SCH 1 is included in the
West Coast North Island Finfish Plan, which will be one of the first to be developed. MFish
considers that it would be best for management objectives for the fishery to be developed,
and standards to be implemented, in conjunction with stakeholders through the fisheries
plan process. MFish also notes that ultimately you are required to provide for the
sustainable utilisation of the SCH 1 fishery and the options presented in this paper seek to
achieve that goal.
Research
86
Some environmental and customary respondents called for further research to be conducted
into school sharks to determine accurate stock information.
87
MFish notes that results from a CPUE analysis of school shark stocks is due to be
completed later in 2007. A stock monitoring assessment and a study of school shark stock
relationships around New Zealand have been scheduled in the Medium Term Research Plan
for inshore stocks. Other research projects will be developed as required.
National Plan of Action for Sharks
88
Environmental respondents were concerned about the management of shark fisheries and
proposals to increase shark TACCs without an overall National Plan of Action (NPOA) for
Sharks and called for MFish to urgently develop a NPOA for sharks.
89
MFish is in the process of developing a NPOA for sharks. This is due to be released for
consultation soon.
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
90
In setting a TAC for SCH 1, you are required to consider the social, economic, recreational
and cultural wellbeing of people in the Hauraki Gulf and, in particular, to maintain and
enhance the physical resources of the Gulf, including school shark.
91
Relatively little school shark is caught commercially in the inner Hauraki Gulf (Fisheries
Statistical Areas 005, 006 and 007). School shark is caught in larger quantities in Statistical
Areas 003 and 008 but the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park only covers a relatively small part of
these Areas. The Marine Park also covers a small amount of Areas 004 and 009 but
relatively little school shark is caught in these Areas (see map in Appendix 2). It is
therefore not apparent that the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Area is of significant importance
for the wellbeing of commercial fishers of school shark or for the wellbeing of those living
in the Gulf who purchase commercially caught school shark.
92
MFish has no information to suggest that school shark in the Hauraki Gulf is more or less
important to non-commercial fishers than school shark elsewhere. Traditionally Maori are
known to have fished for shark species in the Firth of Thames and may have done so in
other areas of the Gulf.
338 of 397
93
No respondents to this consultation to provided any additional information on the
importance of school shark to the social, economic, recreational and cultural wellbeing of
people in the Hauraki Gulf.
Statutory considerations
94
Statutory considerations are summarised in Appendix One.
339 of 397
Appendix One
Statutory Considerations
95
In developing the management options outlined in this paper, MFish has considered all of
the relevant statutory obligations set out in the Fisheries Act 1996. These are summarised
below:
a) Section 5(a) and 5(b): Application of International Obligations and Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992: There is a wide range of international
obligations relating to fishing including sustainability and utilisation of fishstocks and
maintaining biodiversity. MFish considers issues arising under international obligations
and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 are
adequately addressed in the management options for SCH 1.
b) Section 8: Purpose of the Act: The management options provide for utilisation by
setting allowances for commercial, recreational and customary fishers. TAC options 2
and 3 should have economic benefits for commercial fishers and TAC option 1 does not
reduce the amount of SCH 1 allocated to the commercial sector. Any increase of the
TAC, to above the level of option 1, could increase the risk to stock sustainability as
school shark have low productivity. However, recent catches have been relatively stable
and may indicate that those risks are small, at least in the short term.
c) Section 9(a): Associated or dependent species: Maui’s dolphin occur within the range of
school shark. Increasing the SCH 1 TACC could increase the risk of Maui’s dolphin
interaction with fishing gear; however this is not certain and the risk cannot be
quantified.
d) Section 9(b): Biological diversity: There is no evidence that interactions between school
shark and other species are of significant magnitude to impact on biological diversity.
e) Section 9(c): Habitat of particular significance for fisheries management: One school
shark habitat of particular significance for fisheries management has been identified.
The Kaipara Harbour is a location where female school shark congregate to pup and
where the catch can be made up entirely of pregnant females. It is unknown whether the
options presented would increase fishing pressure on the Kaipara Harbour school shark.
f) Section 10: Information Principles: The information principles of the Act require that
decisions be based on the best available information, taking into account any uncertainty
in that information, and applying caution when information is uncertain, unreliable, or
inadequate. Section 10 also requires that you take into account the principle that the
absence or uncertainty of information should not be used as a reason to postpone, or fail
to take, any measure to achieve the purpose of the Act. MFish considers that the
information used to support the SCH 1 proposals is uncertain and inadequate but is the
best currently available. MFish also recognises that SCH 1 is an information poor
fishery and that the options proposed meet the requirement of this section. In preparing
this paper, MFish relied primarily on the following information sources to develop the
management options:
i)
The Report from the Stock Assessment Plenary on School Shark, May 2006
ii) Commercial catch and landings data held by the Ministry of Fisheries
340 of 397
iii) Ayres et al. Examination of catch per unit effort analyses for school shark from
bycatch and target fisheries in New Zealand, 1989-90 to 2001-02 (Fisheries
Assessment Report 2006/26)
iv) Responses to the consultation on the Initial Position Paper.
g) Section 11(1)(a): Effects of fishing on any stock and the aquatic environment: A
significant amount of SCH 1 is caught by bottom trawl, which does impact on the benthic
environment. However, SCH 1 is only taken by bottom trawl as a bycatch and the
bottom trawl operations do not generally target school shark. As a result, MFish does not
consider that fishing for school shark has a significant impact on biological diversity of
the aquatic environment.
h) Section 11(1)(b): Existing controls under the Act: For SCH 1 there is a current TACC
of 668.47 tonnes. Under the Fisheries (Auckland and Kermadec Areas Amateur Fishing)
Regulations 1986, school shark is included in the combined daily bag limit of 20 and has
a minimum set net mesh size of 125mm.
i) Section 11(1)(c): Natural variability of the stock: Although no estimate of school shark
biomass is available, it is assumed to fluctuate over time due to variable recruitment
caused primarily by environmental conditions. This variability is likely to be less
important than in other stocks. Indeed, variability of shark species is generally lower
than for bony finfish with pelagic eggs and larvae.
j) Section 11(2)(a) and (b): Resource Management Act 1991 and Conservation Act 1987:
There are no provisions applicable to the coastal marine area known to exist in any
policy statement or plan under the Resource Management Act 1991, or any management
strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1987, that are relevant to the setting or
varying of any sustainability measure for this stock.
k) Section 11(2)(c): Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000: The implications of sections 7
and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 were considered in the main section of
this paper.
l) Section 11(2A)(a) and (c): Conservation and fisheries services: A Threat Management
Plan to mitigate the risk to Maui’s dolphin is being developed. The potential impact of
any SCH 1 TAC increase on Maui’s dolphin has been discussed in this paper. Standard
fisheries services such as research and enforcement of the fisheries regulations are
ongoing. No decision has been made not to require conservation or fisheries services.
m) Section 11(2A)(b): Relevant fisheries plans: While fisheries plans that include school
shark are in development, no relevant fisheries plans have been approved under section
11A(1).
n) Section 13(2)(a): Total Allowable Catch: The TAC under section 13(2) should be set at
a level that maintains the stock at or above a level that can produce the maximum
sustainable yield, having regard to the interdependence of stocks. As biomass
information is unavailable, it is unknown whether the current TACC, current catch
levels, or the options presented in this paper, are at levels that will support the maximum
sustainable yield. However, recent catches have been relatively stable and there are no
indications that current catches are not sustainable in the short-term.
o) Section 20 (5): No TACC unless TAC set: The original TACC for SCH1 was set under
section 28C of the Fisheries Act 1983 which did not require a TAC to be set first. Under
the 1996 Act any setting of a TACC requires the TAC to be set first.
341 of 397
p) Section 21(1): Non-commercial fishing interests and other mortality caused by fishing:
The nature of the fishery and the interests of the respective fishing sectors have been
considered in proposing TACCs and allowances for recreational and customary interests
and all other mortality to the stock caused by fishing.
q) Section 21(4) and (5): Mataitai reserves and closures under sections 186A and 311 of
the Act: There is one Mataitai reserve in the QMA – at Raukokore on the eastern Bay of
Plenty, however it is not considered that this has any significant implications for the SCH
1 TAC. There are three areas closed for customary purposes in the QMA, all of these are
closures are for certain shellfish species only and have no implications for the SCH 1
TAC. No section 311 closures have been enacted in the QMA.
342 of 397
343 of 397
DREDGE OYSTER (OYS 7C) – FINAL ADVICE
Executive Summary
1
This advice paper seeks your decision on whether to increase the Total Allowable Catch
(TAC) for the dredge oyster (OYS 7C) fishery (Clarence Point to West Head).
2
An Initial Position Paper (IPP), released in June 2007, proposed four options: retain the
current TAC at five tonnes (status quo) or increase the TAC to either 25 tonnes, 50 tonnes,
or 100 tonnes. Under each option, the current non-commercial allowances of three tonnes
are retained and the proposed Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) is the remainder
of the TAC.
3
Each option has an associated degree of risk of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the
OYS 7C stock and managing the effects of fishing on the benthic environment. This risk
increases under higher TAC levels.
4
Six submissions were received on the IPP. Two submissions from industry support the
highest TAC option to enable commercial fishers to derive greater economic value from the
OYS 7C stock (both submissions support a higher TAC level than the options presented).
Two submissions support a moderate TAC increase to provide greater utilisation
opportunities in light of the available dredge oyster biomass. Two submissions support
retaining the existing TAC because of concerns about the impacts of fishing under higher
catch levels on the wider aquatic environment.
344 of 397
5
This paper considers the views raised by submitters in response to the proposed TAC
options. Based on the best available information, the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish)
supports increasing the OYS 7C TAC to provide a higher commercial harvest level.
In setting the TAC, you are required to balance the available opportunity for industry to
derive greater economic return from the fishery against ensuring a sustainable fishery and
taking into account the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment.
The Issue
6
The Minister of Fisheries set a nominal TAC of five tonnes (greenweight) for the OYS 7C
stock when dredge oyster was introduced into the Quota Management System (QMS) on
1 October 2005. The TAC was set at a conservative level to reflect the absence of relevant
stock assessment information with which to determine a more appropriate sustainable
harvest level. The TAC includes allowances of one tonne each for customary and
recreational interests, and other sources of fishing-related mortality, and a TACC of
two tonnes.
7
Following QMS introduction, there has been negligible commercial catches within the
OYS 7C fishery (ie, less than 100 kg). This lack of commercial fishing effort is directly
attributable to the small TACC and the associated fishing costs involved to harvest dredge
oysters. These fishing costs include vessel time, fuel, crew wages, etc, as well as the cost to
obtain the necessary sanitary and biotoxin certification 88 for waters where dredge oysters
are taken. The existing TAC effectively prohibits industry from developing a viable
commercial fishery, since the fishing costs to harvest two tonnes of dredge oysters outweigh
any economic returns.
8
Industry has requested a review of the TAC to enable commercial fishers to derive a greater
economic return from the fishery. Industry has supported its request by collecting
new stock assessment information that indicates the fishery can sustain higher catch levels.
88
The taking of bivalve molluscs (including dredge oysters) for human consumption must be taken from approved
waters certified under the Animal Products (Specifications for Bivalve Molluscan Shellfish) Notice 2006.
345 of 397
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
9
The IPP proposed the following four TAC options:
Table 1:
Four TAC options for OYS 7C (tonnes greenweight) as proposed in the IPP
Option 1
(Status quo)
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
TAC
5 tonnes
25 tonnes
50 tonnes
100 tonnes
Allowance for other sources of
fishing-related mortality
1 tonne
1 tonne
1 tonne
1 tonne
Allowance for customary Mäori
interests
1 tonne
1 tonne
1 tonne
1 tonne
Allowance
interests
1 tonne
1 tonne
1 tonne
1 tonne
2 tonnes
22 tonnes
47 tonnes
97 tonnes
for
recreational
TACC
Final Proposal
10
The options available for consideration are:
a)
AGREE to:
Option 1 (status quo): Leave the OYS 7C TAC and TACC unchanged at
5 tonnes and 2 tonnes, respectively.
OR
b)
AGREE to:
Option 2: Increase the OYS 7C TAC and TACC from 5 tonnes and 2 tonnes
to 25 tonnes and 20.5 tonnes, respectively;
OR
c)
AGREE to:
Option 3: Increase the OYS 7C TAC and TACC from 5 tonnes and 2 tonnes
to 50 tonnes and 43 tonnes, respectively (MFish’s preferred option)
OR
d)
AGREE to:
Option 4: Increase the OYS 7C TAC and TACC from 5 tonnes and 2 tonnes
to 100 tonnes and 88 tonnes, respectively.
346 of 397
11
Note the proposed final options are different to those presented in the IPP as they include
new allowances for other sources of fishing-related mortality. Under each option the
current allowances of one tonne each for customary Mäori and recreational interests are
retained.
12
As Minister of Fisheries, you may consider alternative options that you consider best
address your obligations under the Fisheries Act 1996.
Consultation
13
Your decision on whether to increase the TAC for the OYS 7C fishery is a decision under
s 13(1) of the Fisheries Act 1996; therefore, the consultation requirements of s 12 apply.
Further, in respect of your decision on whether to adjust the TACC for the OYS C fishery,
the consultation requirements set out in s 21(2) apply.
14
Consultation on the IPP was undertaken with such persons or organisations representative of
those classes of persons having an interest in the OYS 7C stock or the effects of fishing on
the aquatic environment in the area concerned, including Mäori, environmental,
commercial, and recreational interests.
Submissions Received
15
Submissions regarding this proposal were received from:
•
Environment and Conservation Organisation of NZ Inc. (ECO)
•
Fisheries Development Solutions (FDS)
•
Marlborough Recreational Fishers Incorporated (MRF)
•
Matthew Hardyment
•
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC)
•
The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd (SeaFIC)
Rationale for Management Options
16
The IPP presented four TAC options based on stock assessment information that has
recently become available. This information (collected in April and May 2007 in support of
industry’s request for a TAC review) is based on dredge oyster beds within Cloudy and
Clifford Bays where commercial densities of oysters are known to occur. The information
suggests that recruited 89 dredge oyster biomass within the survey area is 1 778 tonnes
(greenweight) comprising 19.5 million oysters. About 90% of estimated oyster biomass is
found within the southern half of the survey area.
89 Regulation 32(2) of the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 imposes a minimum legal size limit for
dredge oysters of 58 mm (ie, unable to pass through a ring of 58 mm inside diameter). The recruited fishery comprises
oysters greater than 58 mm as these are able to be legally harvested by fishers.
347 of 397
17
Table 2:
Based on the 2007 stock assessment information, four maximum constant yield (MCY)
estimates 90 were presented in the IPP to provide a range of sustainable yield estimates to
assist in determining an appropriate TAC for the OYS 7C stock. These estimates are shown
in Table 2.
Range of MCY-based yield estimates using a range of estimated values for dredge efficiency
and natural mortality
MCY formula
MCY
(tonnes)
MCY1 = 0.25*0.042*(recruited biomass/1)
18
MCY2 = 0.25*0.042*(recruited biomass/0.64)
28
MCY3 = 0.25*0.3*(recruited biomass/1)
133
MCY4 = 0.25*0.3*(recruited biomass/0.64)
213
18
The Shellfish Stock Assessment Working Group considered the above four MCY estimates
provided a “plausible range” of sustainable harvest yields for the OYS 7C fishery.
Each estimate is derived using two input parameters (proxies) to represent (i) natural
mortality (M) of the stock, and (ii) dredge efficiency. The Working Group’s view
acknowledges the inherent uncertainty associated with each estimate as neither of these two
parameters are specific to the OYS 7C stock. Instead, they are derived from previous
studies undertaken in the Foveaux Strait and Tasman Bay dredge oyster fisheries, and it is
not known whether these parameters reliably represent the OYS 7C stock. The Working
Group agreed the lowest yield estimate (18 tonnes) is almost certain to be sustainable (apart
from any issues related to the impacts of fishing on the benthic habitat). However, without
better information on the applicability of the MCY parameters used to represent the
OYS 7C stock, it is increasingly difficult to be assured of sustainability under higher catch
levels.
19
Two additional MCY estimates are also available for the OYS 7C fishery (409 tonnes and
639 tonnes). However, the IPP did not consider these estimates given the above views of
the Working Group.
20
In addition to ensuring the sustainability of the OYS 7C stock, the TAC options presented in
the IPP reflect the uncertainty about the impacts of fishing on the aquatic environment
under a higher catch level. Dredging for oysters will have an impact on the soft, muddy
benthic environment within Cloudy and Clifford Bays, and will affect both the dredge
oyster beds and other species found in association with these beds. The impacts can include
increased suspension of silt over oyster beds and the direct removal and/or disturbance of
various species.
21
The impacts of fishing on the benthic environment will increase with higher harvest levels.
However, there is insufficient information to quantify the degree of impact under each TAC
90 MCY = 0.25M B0. B0 is an estimate of virgin recruited biomass (assumed to equal the recruited biomass estimated
from the survey, divided by dredge efficiency) and M is an estimate of natural mortality.
348 of 397
option. Various areas within the fishery (mainly coastal and around rocky reefs/clumps ie,
foul ground) are understood to support a range of sensitive invertebrate species including
soft corals, large erect and divaricating bryozoans, starfish, horse mussels, and crabs.
While the fishery has been subject to very little commercial dredging to date, the bottom
type where dredge oyster beds occur is likely to be already modified by long-term
commercial bottom trawling.
22
During the initial stage of developing the OYS 7C fishery, industry proposes to voluntarily
restrict fishing to two discrete areas (shown in Figure 2) within the quota management area
(QMA) to mitigate the effects of fishing. These areas are where oyster densities are highest
and are generally away from coastal areas (ie, >10m water depth exclusions for sanitary
purposes) and areas of foul ground. MFish understands the industry will require
participating commercial vessels to implement vessel monitoring technology to ensure that
fishers adhere to the restricted fishing areas.
Figure 2:
23
Proposed commercial harvest areas (depicted as Zones 1 and 2)
One reason for introducing the OYS 7C stock into the QMS (and setting a nominal TAC) is
to provide incentives for commercial rights-holders to invest and develop a viable
sustainable fishery while taking into account the effects of fishing on the aquatic
environment. The TAC options presented in the IPP will enable these rights-holders to
achieve this desired outcome.
349 of 397
Assessment of Management Options
Total Allowable Catch
24
The OYS 7C TAC was initially set at a nominal level (five tonnes) to reflect the absence of
relevant stock assessment information with which to determine a more appropriate
sustainable harvest level at the time of QMS introduction.
This approach also
acknowledges that the fishery had been subject to negligible commercial fishing effort and
the biological characteristics of dredge oysters. Relative to other shellfish fisheries,
dredge oysters are a species of low productivity 91 and discrete oyster beds are prone to
fluctuations in abundance that can render them susceptible to the effects of localised fishing.
25
The IPP sets out the obligations under the Act to ensure the sustainable utilisation of the
OYS 7C fishery. The TAC in this fishery is currently set under s 13 of the Act and the best
available information suggests the stock is probably well above a level that can produce the
maximum sustainable yield (BMSY). Section 13(2)(a) requires the TAC to be set at a level
that maintains the stock at, or above, this target stock level having regard to the
interdependence of stocks. In the IPP, MFish proposed four TAC options, each with a
different likelihood of achieving this prescribed outcome. MFish highlights that you are not
bound to accept any of the four options presented in this paper, but rather you have
discretion to consider an alternative option that you consider best addresses your obligations
under the Act.
26
Four of the six submissions support the need to increase the TAC to provide commercial
fishers with an opportunity to derive greater economic value from the fishery.
These submitters agree the current TAC is conservative and overly restricts commercial
fishers from deriving greater value from the fishery through higher catch levels. However,
MFish notes there is no consensus from submitters on a preferred TAC option.
Two submissions support retaining the TAC because of concerns about the impacts of
fishing on the wider aquatic environment.
27
MFish disagrees with industry’s comments that the proposed options represent a “one-off”
or “set and forget” process in respect to the setting of the TAC. To the contrary, MFish
believes effective management of newly developing fisheries, such as the OYS 7C fishery,
requires ongoing development and refinement of management measures to ensure all fishers
are able to derive better value from the fishery while managing the effects of fishing. This
approach may include initiatives for further research and information collection to review
sustainable harvest yields and this could lead to periodic adjustments to the TAC to reflect
best available information. Other initiatives could include research to investigate the effects
of fishing on the aquatic environment under higher catch levels. MFish believes the
fisheries plan approach will provide the best framework to manage the OYS 7C fishery in
the long-term. Fisheries plans can consider different harvest strategies, and will involve
ongoing participation by all relevant stakeholders. MFish notes the proposed Challenger
Scallop and Oyster Fisheries Plan will include the OYS 7C fishery and is expected to be
completed within the next 2-5 years.
28
There is a wide range of yield estimates (based on a MCY-based harvest strategy approach)
to provide a guide in setting an appropriate TAC in accordance with s 13(2)(a) of the Act
91
Dredge oysters are generally long-lived, slow-growing, brood relatively few larvae that do not disperse widely, and
have high post-settlement mortality and low recruit mortality.
350 of 397
(ie, ensuring the stock is at, or above, the target stock level (BMSY)). MFish highlights there
is inherent risk (arising from uncertainty) that these estimates do not reliably reflect a
sustainable harvest level under each of the three higher TAC options. The uncertainty arises
in several areas in the calculation of each yield estimate including sampling error
(the survey CV is about 20%) and the applicability of the range of parameters (proxies)
derived from other dredge oyster fisheries to reliably model the OYS 7C fishery. The main
areas of uncertainty include as follows:
•
It is unknown whether the estimates of natural mortality (derived from Foveaux Strait
and Tasman Bay dredge oyster fisheries) are appropriate for the OYS 7C fishery and
reflect the natural variability in oyster populations from year to year;
•
There may be problems in using a simplistic MCY-based approach where there may be
significant spatial variations in the distribution of oysters and the subsequent
concentration of fishing effort;
•
Whether natural mortality (M) can be reliably used to provide MCY-based yield
estimates given the likelihood that there will be some level of incidental fishing
mortality, especially under higher catch levels. In the presence of incidental mortality,
M is likely to be an optimistic proxy for Fref in the yield equation used for the OYS 7C
fishery (MCY = 0.25 x Fref x B0);
•
Inherent variability with non-OYS 7C fishery dredge efficiency estimates (derived from
Tasman Bay and an intentionally conservative value);
•
There is considerable uncertainty whether current biomass is a good estimate of ‘virgin
biomass’, which is critical in estimating yield for this relatively unexploited fishery.
29
As such, there is the potential for the use of non-OYS 7C parameters to lead to poor
estimates of sustainable harvest yields for the OYS 7C fishery. Therefore, MFish supports
adopting a cautious approach at this time in setting a new TAC for the OYS 7C fishery until
better information becomes available to reassess the applicability of the available yield
estimates. Such an adaptive approach is appropriate in developing ‘new fisheries’ from a
relatively unexploited state.
30
MFish disagrees with industry’s view that the proposed TAC options are unnecessarily
constrained towards the lower range of the available yield estimates. While two additional
(higher) estimates have been calculated for the fishery (409 tonnes and 639 tonnes), MFish
remains of the view that there is unreasonable uncertainty in using these estimates as a basis
to review the TAC at this time for the reasons described above. MFish is not confident that
setting the TAC based on these two yield estimates would ensure the long-term
sustainability of the OYS 7C stock and manage the effects of fishing on the benthic
environment.
31
MFish remains of the view that the four TAC options provide an appropriate management
approach to review the OYS 7C TAC. MFish notes that it may be appropriate to reconsider
the TAC at a later date once the fishery has responded under a higher catch level to better
assess whether the TAC is set an appropriate level. Again, MFish contends the fisheries
plan approach will provide the best context in which to review the TAC for the fishery.
351 of 397
32
Under each TAC option proposed, you are required to have regard to the interdependence of
stocks.
33
The advantages and disadvantages of the proposed TAC options are discussed below.
Retain the TAC at 5 tonnes (Option 1)
34
This option retains the TAC at five tonnes (status quo). Both ECO and MRF express strong
support for this option primarily because of the potential impacts of fishing under a higher
catch level on both the benthic environment and the associated species. These matters are
discussed in a separate section below. Under this option, commercial fishing effort is likely
to remain very low, and therefore, the direct impacts of dredging on the aquatic
environment will continue to be negligible.
35
MFish does not recommend Option 1 in light of the new stock assessment information,
which clearly indicates the fishery can sustain higher catch levels than the current TAC
allows. Retaining the TAC will continue to prevent industry from deriving best economic
value from the fishery, as fishing costs to harvest the TACC will outweigh the economic
returns derived from harvesting a maximum of two tonnes of dredge oysters.
MFish reiterates that one of the premises of managing fisheries under the QMS is to provide
a framework that enables commercial rights-holders to develop fisheries within a
sustainable harvest level while managing the effects of fishing. The current TAC was set at
a nominal level to allocate commercial development rights to the fishery while
acknowledging the absence of stock assessment information. A decision to retain the TAC
when new stock assessment information is available is contrary to the intent of introducing
the OYS 7C stock into the QMS to provide for the utilisation of the stock while ensuring
sustainability.
Higher TAC options (Options 2, 3 and 4)
36
Under these options, the TAC will be increased to either 25 tonnes, 50 tonnes or 100 tonnes.
Ensuring sustainability of the OYS 7C stock
37
As noted above, there is a wide range of harvest yield estimates to provide a guide in setting
a higher TAC. However, these estimates are associated with inherent risk that they do not
reliably reflect a sustainable harvest level; this risk increases with increasing harvest levels.
In addition, because dredge oysters are susceptible to localised depletion, the impacts of
fishing on individual oyster beds and on adjacent beds are unknown. As such, the risk of
ensuring sustainability of the OYS 7C stock increases under higher TAC options.
38
Although Matthew Hardyment does not express support for a specific TAC option, his
views indicate support for a moderate TAC increase. MFish is unclear whether the
submitter favours increasing the TAC to 25 tonnes or 50 tonnes, but he notes the fishery is
extremely underfished and this is preventing oysters growing to a more desirable size.
Typically, unexploited shellfish fisheries exhibit very high biomass, resulting in lower
growth rates due to competition between individuals for food and space. MFish agrees that
enabling greater catches from the fishery should effectively ‘thin out’ the oyster beds and
this may increase the productivity from the fishery.
352 of 397
39
The NZRFC supports Option 3 (increasing the TAC to 50 tonnes) on the basis that new
information is available to justify a higher catch level. MFish agrees with NZRFC’s view
that industry is adopting a “more cautious and research-driven approach” to develop the
OYS 7C fishery, and that this TAC would provide sufficient encouragement for industry to
develop the fishery while ensuring sustainability is maintained.
40
MFish contends that Option 2 (increasing the TAC to 25 tonnes) provides the lowest degree
of risk (of the three higher TAC options) of ensuring the OYS 7C stock is maintained at, or
above, a level that can produce the BMSY, while having regard to the interdependence of
stocks.
41
Increasing the TAC to 50 tonnes (Option 3) accepts a higher degree of risk to the
sustainability of the OYS 7C stock. MFish notes the level of uncertainty of maintaining the
stock at, or above, a level that can produce the BMSY is higher under Option 3.
42
Industry supports Option 4 (increasing the TAC to 100 tonnes). Industry contends this is
conservative and will not threaten the sustainability of the OYS 7C fishery as the minimum
legal size limit (58 mm) protects the spawning stock from the effects of fishing, together
with proposed voluntary closures and remoteness of the fishery. SeaFIC supports this view,
but believes the fishery can sustain a much higher TAC level.
43
MFish accepts the new stock assessment information indicates there is a substantial dredge
oyster biomass within the OYS 7C QMA. While the available yield estimates suggest a
100 tonne TAC may be sustainable, MFish highlights the inherent risks associated with
these estimates to reliably reflect the OYS 7C fishery (as discussed earlier). The level of
risk of maintaining the stock at, or above, a level that can produce the BMSY is highest under
Option 4.
44
MFish supports a cautious approach in setting a new TAC for the OYS 7C fishery. It may
be more appropriate to obtain better information on the fishery before the TAC is set at a
level as high as that proposed under Option 4. This information could also include how the
OYS 7C stock responds under a higher catch level. Such an approach acknowledges the
susceptibility of a sedentary species such as dredge oysters to localised depletion, and the
unpredictable dynamics of a relatively unexploited fishery.
45
MFish notes there is potential for increased conflict between the industry and
non-commercial fishers in accessing oysters under higher catch levels. Potential conflict is
highest under Option 4. However, MFish considers the level of non-commercial harvest
within the OYS 7C fishery is relatively small and generally occurs away from the main
commercial oyster beds within Cloudy and Clifford Bays. MFish believes spatial conflict
with other fishers will be mitigated by the industry’s proposal to restrict commercial
harvesting away from coastal areas. This will effectively allocate the most accessible oyster
beds (ie, those beds found close to shore and within Port Underwood) to non-commercial
fishers. In addition, commercial fishers are prohibited from taking dredge oysters between
1 September in any year and the last day of February in the following year (both days
inclusive), and this serves to remove issues of conflict between commercial and
non-commercial sectors over the main summer period.
353 of 397
Managing the impacts of fishing on the aquatic environment
46
47
MFish notes the main concerns raised by ECO and MRF in support of retaining the current
TAC focus on the potential effects of fishing on associated species within and adjacent to
areas where dredging will occur. Broadly, the rationale for their position can be
summarised as follows:
•
Industry did not provide an environmental impact assessment in support of a higher
TAC;
•
Industry is wrong to assume muddy and sandy areas have low biodiversity;
•
There is nothing to prohibit industry from intensively dredging foul ground to expand
fishing areas;
•
The effects of oyster dredging on marine biodiversity in Foveaux Strait are well
documented and suggest epifaunal reefs of encrusting bryozoans, ascidians, sponges and
polychaetes are very vulnerable to dredging. The seafloor may take many years
(>75 years) to recover once fishing has ceased;
•
Dredging will severely impact on the benthic environment and on local finfish fisheries,
including blue cod, through habitat modification. Finfish fishing will be affected
through the loss of “rough, undisturbed foul ground”; and
•
Government has clear responsibilities to manage the effects of fishing in accordance
with MFish’s Statement of Intent 2005-08 and the Strategy for the Environmental
Effects of Fishing.
MFish agrees with the views of ECO and MRF that the effects of fishing under a higher
catch level are very important considerations in setting a TAC for the OYS 7C fishery.
The management options seek to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while
ensuring sustainability. This includes avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects
of fishing on the aquatic environment. Further, the Act requires you to consider the effects
of fishing on the wider aquatic environment in accordance with the environmental
principles under s 9. These principles require you to take account of the following:
•
Maintain associated or dependent species above a level that ensures their long-term
viability;
•
Maintain biological diversity of the aquatic environment; and
•
Protect habitats of particular significance for fisheries management.
48
MFish accepts that harvesting of dredge oysters impacts on the soft, muddy benthic
environment within Cloudy and Clifford Bays. These impacts affect both the oyster beds,
and other invertebrate and fish species found in association with these beds. Under each
higher TAC option, the potential impacts of increased fishing effort on the benthic
environment will increase.
49
The 2007 survey indicates there are several areas within Cloudy and Clifford Bays where a
wide range of sensitive invertebrate species occur (including soft corals, bryozoans, and
354 of 397
horse mussels). However, these species are predominately found in coastal areas and/or
areas of foul ground, and are generally away from where the main dredge oyster beds occur.
50
In setting the TAC, MFish notes that fishing in the initial stage of developing the OYS 7C
fishery will be constrained within two specific commercial harvest areas. These areas are
largely away from sensitive areas (such as coastal areas) where reefs and hard substrates are
more common and where biodiversity is likely to be higher. MFish understands that while
there has been little historical dredging activity within the OYS 7C QMA, the main oyster
beds are found in areas already subject to long-term bottom trawling. As such, the proposed
commercial harvest areas for dredge oysters are unlikely to be in pristine condition with
high biological diversity.
51
Concerns are also raised about the effects of dredging under higher catch levels on
important finfish fisheries such as flatfish, gurnard, moki, and blue cod. MRF states that
fishing will have a detrimental impact on the blue cod fishery through the disturbance of
preferred benthic habitat such as reefs and cobble/stone areas, and reducing the number of
larvae that circulate within Clifford Bay before entering the Marlborough Sounds.
MFish does not have sufficient information to comment on the validity of these specific
concerns, but accepts that fishing will have an impact on the benthic environment (both the
oyster beds themselves and associated fish species), and that these impacts will increase
under higher catch levels.
52
MFish highlights that no specific assessment on likely environmental effects has been
undertaken to support industry’s request for a TAC adjustment. As such, it is unknown
whether the effects of increased dredging within the proposed harvest areas will have a
detrimental impact on the benthic environment, or to what extent. Therefore, MFish
considers it is appropriate that you act cautiously in setting a TAC in the absence of more
quantitative information to assess the impacts of fishing. MFish notes the fisheries plan
approach may provide a suitable context to review the need for research to get better
information about the effects of fishing in the OYS 7C fishery.
TACC and Allowances
Non-commercial allowances
53
The NZRFC expresses concern that there is no commensurate increase to the recreational
allowance under each proposed TAC option. Each option proposes to retain the existing
allowance of one tonne for recreational interests. The NZRFC contends this allowance
should be proportional or at the least 10% of the TAC level to prevent a future reduction to
the amateur daily bag limit 92 in the event the fishery declines and there is a need to
constrain harvest levels.
54
You have discretion to determine how to allocate an allowance for recreational interests in
setting the TAC for the OYS 7C stock. MFish accepts that dredge oysters are an important
species for many recreational fishers; however, the level of recreational take within the
OYS 7C fishery is likely to be relatively small and generally away from the main
commercial oyster beds within Cloudy and Clifford Bays.
MFish notes
Matthew Hardyment’s comments that while recreational (and customary) harvest levels are
unknown, they can be assumed to be minimal due to the adverse weather conditions in
92
A daily bag limit for recreational fishers of 50 oysters per person and a minimum size limit of 58 mm applies.
355 of 397
Cook Strait. The MRF states that a “significant number” of their members extensively fish
in Clifford Bay to catch tarakihi, blue cod and moki, and that commercial dredging will
impact on these activities. MFish is unclear whether these members fish within the
proposed commercial oyster harvest areas.
55
While MFish acknowledges NZRFC’s concerns about future reductions to the amateur
catch level under a declining stock level, the proposed TAC options should ensure the
fishery remains sustainable in the long-term. No additional information was forthcoming
from submitters that the current allowance of one tonne constrains recreational catches of
dredge oysters to warrant a review of the recreational allowance at this time.
56
Submitters did not provide any additional information regarding the allowance for
customary Mäori interests under each TAC option. As such, MFish believes it is
appropriate to retain the customary allowance at this time.
Other sources of fishing-related mortality
57
MFish agrees with the NZRFC’s and SeaFIC’s views that it is appropriate to set an
allowance for other sources of fishing-related mortality that better reflects the level of
incidental mortality of dredge oysters from fishing under higher catch levels. While there is
no quantitative information to reliably determine the actual level of incidental mortality
under each TAC option, it is reasonable to assume this mortality will increase as catch
levels increase. Research in the Foveaux Strait oyster fishery indicates that incidental
mortality caused by dredging is inversely proportional to the size of oysters: only a few
legal sized oysters are killed by dredging, but 19-36% of spat (<10mm) are killed.
This research suggests that incidental mortality from dredging may reduce recruitment in
heavily fished areas at local scales, but is unlikely to be important at the scale of the entire
fishery.
58
In the absence of information for the OYS 7C fishery, MFish considers it is appropriate to
include a new allowance for other sources of fishing-related mortality under each option
that is equivalent to 10% of the proposed TAC.
Total allowable commercial catch
59
The IPP proposed a TACC (ie, 2, 22, 47 and 97 tonnes) for each of the four TAC options.
Each proposed TACC has been amended to reflect the inclusion of a new allowance for
other sources of fishing-related mortality within the TAC and are shown in Table 3.
The table includes a revised indicative estimate of the landed value of the commercial
fishery under each option and is based on a port price of $6.75 per kg for dredge oysters
within the adjacent OYS 7 fishery.
356 of 397
Table 3:
Proposed TAC and TACC options (tonnes greenweight) including an indicative landed value
estimate of dredge oysters under each option
Option
Proposed TAC
(tonnes)
Proposed TACC
(tonnes)
An estimate of the value of
the commercial fishery
Option 1
5
2
$13 500
Option 2
25
20.5
$138 375
Option 3
50
43
$290 250
Option 4
100
88
$594 000
60
The potential immediate economic return to industry is greatest under the highest proposed
TACC (Option 4) and simply reflects the greatest level of utilisation under the four options
presented.
61
MFish agrees with industry’s view that the value of the commercial fishery as reported in
the IPP (based on port price of landed oysters) reflects an ‘indicative’ value only and does
not take into account ‘actual’ costs of fishing (including fuel, crew wages,
sanitation/biotoxins costs, etc.). There is currently no specific information available to
better assess the economic value of the fishery under each of the TAC options.
MFish understands that only a small number of vessels (possibly up to three vessels only)
will operate in the OYS 7C fishery, and this is likely to increase the profitability derived
from the fishery.
Other Management Issues
62
Greater commercial use of the fishery may require more MFish resources in terms of
monitoring, surveillance and inspection to ensure accuracy of reporting. However, this
would need to be accommodated within existing resources. An increased pressure on these
resources is not expected to have a constraint on any of the options presented.
Statutory Considerations
63
In forming the management options, MFish has considered all the statutory obligations
described in the Act. These are summarised below.
a)
Section 8: The purpose of the Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability. The proposed higher TAC options seek to
enable the commercial sector to derive greater value from the OYS 7C fishery to
reflect the available resources, while mitigating the effects of fishing on the benthic
environment. Option 1 does not increase the opportunity for greater utilisation from
the fishery.
b)
Section 13(2)(a): Under s 13 of the Act, the TAC must be set at a level that ensures
357 of 397
the stock is maintained at, or above, a level that can produce the BMSY having regard
to the interdependence of stocks. This paper presents a range of TAC options each
with a different but uncertain likelihood of achieving this objective – the likelihood
of ensuring the stock is maintained at, or above, a level that can produce the BMSY
decreases under higher catch levels.
c)
Section 9(a) and (b): MFish has no evidence that maintaining biological diversity
and associated or dependent species will be threatened by retaining the TAC at its
current level. The effects of fishing on biological diversity and associated or
dependent species will increase under higher catch levels. However, it is anticipated
that the effects of fishing on some bycatch species will be managed under the QMS
framework. In addition, the industry proposes to voluntarily constrain commercial
dredging to two specific areas to mitigate the effects of fishing on the benthic
environment.
d)
Section 9(c): MFish has not identified any habitats of particular significance for
fisheries management with regards to the OYS 7C stock. MFish notes that dredging
can have adverse effects on the benthic environment. Dredging, especially in areas
with high silt levels, can potentially remove settlement surfaces and suspend silt,
which can cause high mortality of newly settled recruits for various invertebrate
species.
e)
Section 5(a) and (b): MFish states the s 5 considerations arising from
New Zealand’s international obligations and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi
(Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 are adequately addressed by the TAC
options discussed in this paper.
f)
Section 11(1)(a): The effects of dredging on the OYS 7C stock and the aquatic
environment under the current TAC are negligible. MFish notes that dredging under
a higher catch level will have an increased impact on the benthic environment within
the OYS 7C QMA. These impacts affect both the oyster beds and other invertebrate
and fish species found in association with these beds. While the fishery has been
subject to very little commercial dredging to date, the bottom type where dredge
oyster beds occur is likely to have already been modified by long-term commercial
bottom trawling. Industry is proposing voluntary measures to mitigate the impacts
of fishing under a higher TAC.
g)
Section 11(1)(b): The commercial sector is restricted to a minimum size limit of
58 mm for dredge oysters, as well as a closed season from 1 September in any year
and the last day of February in the following year (both days inclusive). There is a
daily bag limit for recreational fishers of 50 oysters per person and the minimum size
limit of 58 mm also applies.
h)
Section 11(1)(c): MFish recognises that dredge oyster stocks can be inherently
variable and that discrete oyster beds are prone to fluctuations in abundance that can
render them susceptible to localised depletion.
i)
Section 11(2A)(b): There are no measures that have been adopted in an approved
fisheries plan that would have a bearing on the setting of a TAC for the OYS 7C
stock.
358 of 397
j)
Section 11(2A)(a and c): There are no fisheries or conservation service decisions,
or any decisions not to require fisheries or conservation services that are relevant to
setting a TAC for the OYS 7C stock.
k)
Section 11(2)(a and b): There are no considerations in any regional policy
statement, regional plan or proposed regional plan under the Resource Management
Act 1991 or the Conservation Act 1987 that are specifically relevant to setting a
TAC for the OYS 7C stock.
l)
Section 11(2)(c): The considerations of ss 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park
Act 2000 are not relevant to setting a TAC for the OYS 7C stock.
m)
Section 21(1)(a and b) and (4)(i and ii) and (5): The nature of the fishery and the
interests of the respective fishing sectors have been considered in setting the TACC
and allowances for recreational and customary interests and all other mortality to the
stock caused by fishing. There are no mätaitai within the OYS 7C QMA. No area
has been closed or fishing method restricted under s 186A due to issues associated
with dredge oysters. There are no areas closed to fishing under s 311 at this time.
n)
Section 10: MFish has relied on the May 2007 survey report (TAL07402) prepared
by the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) on behalf of
the OYS 7C quota owners as its principle source of stock assessment information in
developing management options presented in this paper. This is considered to be the
best available information at this time.
359 of 397
360 of 397
WHITE WAREHOU (WWA 5B) – FINAL ADVICE
Figure 1: Current QMAs for white warehou
Executive Summary
1
You are asked to set a Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Total Allowable Commercial Catch
(TACC) and allowances for recreational, customary and other sources of mortality for the
new white warehou quota management area (QMA) 5B (WWA 5B), created as a result of
the pending amalgamation of WWA5 and WWA6 on 1 October 2007.
2
An Initial Position Paper (IPP), which MFish consulted on with stakeholders and tangata
whenua in 2005 and 2007, proposed to set a TAC for the new QMA based on the sum of the
TACs for WWA5 and WWA6 (2,621 tonnes); to set a TACC based on the sum of the
TACCs in WWA5 and WWA6 (2,617 tonnes); to set an allowance of 2 tonnes for
recreational interests; to set an allowance of 2 tonnes for customary fishing interests; and no
allowance for other sources of mortality.
361 of 397
3
Although submissions supported the amalgamation, none made any specific reference to the
TAC, TACC or allowances. MFish’s proposal is unchanged from the IPP.
4
MFish currently has no sustainability concerns for this fishery. White warehou is
predominantly a bycatch species for the hoki fishery. As such, catch volumes are
influenced by fishing patterns for target species.
5
No new information has become available to suggest that a different approach is required to
the way that the original TACs were set.
Summary of Options
Initial Proposal
6
MFish proposes that:
a)
The Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for WWA5B is to be the sum of the existing
TACs for WWA5 and WWA6, ie, 2,621 tonnes;
b)
The Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) is to be the sum of the existing
TACCs for WWA5 and WWA6, ie, 2,617 tonnes;
c)
An allowance of 2 tonnes be made for recreational fishing interests;
d)
An allowance of 2 tonnes be made for customary fishing interests; and
e)
No allowance be made for other sources of mortality.
Final Proposal
7
The proposal is unchanged from the IPP.
Background
8
In May 2007 you agreed to progress a request from quota owners holding approximately
80% of quota shares in quota management areas 5 & 6 for white warehou (WWA 5 & 6)
recommending the making of an Order-in-Council to amalgamate the two QMAs. This
followed a period of consultation on the proposed amalgamation between MFish and quota
owners, including mandated iwi organisations. Quota owners’ representatives and Te Ohu
Kai Moana also consulted with quota owners on the proposal and the quota share allocation
that would result from the amalgamation.
9
On 28 June 2007, the Fisheries (Amalgamation of Quota Management Areas) Order 2007
was notified in the New Zealand Gazette. The Order notifies that WWA 5 & 6 will be
amalgamated with effect from 1 October 2007 (the Fisheries Act 1996 requires that the
Order must be made no fewer than 90 days before it comes into force).
10
In order to give final effect to the amalgamation, it is necessary to set the TAC and TACC
for the new WWA5B.
362 of 397
Consultation
11
MFish undertook two rounds of consultation with stakeholders on the proposed
amalgamation of WWA5 and WWA6, the first in 2005 and the second in 2007. The IPP in
both cases contained the same proposals for setting of the TAC, TACC and recreational and
customary allowances. Under s 25(3) of the Fisheries Act 1996, the Minister of Fisheries
must consult with the persons and organisations considered by the Minister to be
representative of those classes of persons having an interest in the relevant QMA, including
Maori, recreational, commercial and environmental interests. MFish consulted on the
proposed amalgamation with all quota shareholders in WWA5 and 6, local iwi,
environmental non-governmental organisations and national recreational fishing
organisations. While consulting on the amalgamation, MFish also consulted on the proposed
TAC and TACC for WWA5B.
12
Under s 12(1) of the 1996 Act, when setting a sustainability measure including a TAC, you
are required to consult with such persons or organisations as you consider are representative
of those classes of persons having an interest in the stock or the effects of fishing on the
aquatic environment in the area concerned. These persons or organisations include Maori,
environmental, commercial and recreational interests. You are also required to provide for
the input and participation of tangata whenua having a non-commercial interest in the stock
concerned, or an interest in the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area
concerned and have particular regard to kaitiakitanga.
13
Under s 21(2) of the 1996 Act, before setting or varying a TACC for any quota management
stock, you are required to consult with such persons or organisations as you consider are
representative of those classes or persons having an interest in the setting of the TACC
including Maori, environmental, commercial and recreational interests.
14
MFish received two submissions in 2005 and three submissions in 2007 from stakeholders
in regard to the proposed amalgamation. All submitters supported the proposal to
amalgamate WWA5 and 6, with the exception of Te Ohu Kai Moana (TOKM) in 2005.
TOKM opposed it on the grounds that the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 did not provide TOKM
with the flexibility to adjust the allocation of settlement quota to accommodate the
amalgamation of WWA 6 and WWA6. This concern was addressed by the Maori Fisheries
Amendment Act 2006, thus paving the way for the amalgamation to proceed this year.
TOKM now support the amalgamation.
15
None of the submissions in 2005 or 2007 made any specific comment in regard to the
proposed TAC, TACC, or allowances.
Rationale for Management Options
16
The current TACs, TACCs and allowances for WWA5 and WWA6 are as follows (figures
in tonnes):
Stock
TAC
TACC
Recreational
Allowance
Customary
Allowance
WWA5
WWA6
2,129
492
2,127
490
1
1
1
1
363 of 397
17
These catch limits have remained unchanged since the TAC and TACC were set for the
1998-99 fishing year.
18
MFish proposes that the TAC for WWA5B is set as the sum of the current TACs as follows
(figures in tonnes):
Stock
TAC
WWA5
WWA6
WWA5B
2,129
492
2,621
19
The rationale for the setting of the current TACCs is considered to still be sound. MFish
considers that there is no new information has become available to suggest that a different
approach is required to the way that the original TACCs were set.
20
The original TACCs were based on average landings during either the period 1982–83 to
1996–97 for those fishstocks considered to be stable (WWA 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10), or
the period 1994−96 to 1996−97 for the fishstock considered to be developing (WWA5).
MFish revised the landing data used for 1990−91 and 1991−92 years with the checked data
used in the determination of provisional catch history (PCH). The classification of the
WWA2 and WWA4 fishstocks changed from stable to developing because the highest
catches recorded in these fisheries were within the previous three completed fishing years.
Also, the period over which average landings was calculated for WWA1 and WWA6 was
changed to better reflect the level of recent landings.
21
MFish considered that WWA catches have been modestly underreported. As a result, 10%
was added to the TACCs calculated from the average period of landings. This 10% was to
recognise that white warehou can be both a target and bycatch species in different
circumstances and over time, and minor catch components may not have been fully
recorded on the catch effort reporting forms. All TACCs were rounded up to the nearest
tonne.
22
MFish currently has no sustainability concerns for this fishery. White warehou is
predominantly a bycatch species for the hoki fishery. As such, catch volumes are
influenced by fishing patterns for target species. MFish will continue to monitor the
TAC/TACC following amalgamation and provide further advice to the Minister on
appropriate catch levels if catch against the TAC/TACC necessitates a review.
Recreational and Customary
23
A nominal allowance of two tonnes was made for non-commercial catch (i.e. one tonne for
recreational and one tonne for customary fishing) for each QMA when the species was
introduced into the QMS in 1998.
24
It is proposed that an allowance of two tonnes each be made for recreational and customary
fishing in the new QMA, which is the sum of the existing allowances.
364 of 397
Recreational Interests
25
White warehou in areas 5 & 6 area are principally a by-catch of the hoki fleet. The
recreational take of white warehou is likely to be very small given its distribution and depth
preference of 150 to 800 metres.
26
The 2007 Fishery Assessment Plenary 93 noted that the recreational take of white warehou is
likely to be very small given its distribution and depth preferences. No white warehou were
reported from recreational surveys undertaken in 1991-94, although warehou were not
always recorded by species. No submissions were received from recreational fishers on the
proposed TAC and/or TACC.
27
MFish believes that the proposed allowance of two tonnes for recreational interests is
adequate to provide for the social, cultural and economic well-being of recreational fishers
(s 8), given the likelihood of very limited recreational fishing in the new WWA5B.
Maori Customary Fishing Interests
28
The 2007 Plenary noted that no quantitative information is available on the current level of
Maori customary take. However, it is expected that this is likely to be low for the same
reasons that recreational take is likely to be low. No submissions were received from Maori
customary fishers on the proposed TAC and/or TACC.
29
MFish believes that the proposed allowance of two tonnes for Maori customary fishing
interests is adequate to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being (s 8),
given the likelihood of very limited customary fishing in WWA5B.
Other Sources of Mortality
30
The 2007 Plenary stated that no information is available on other sources of mortality
caused by fishing. No allowance is currently made in either the WWA5 or WWA6 TAC for
other sources of mortality caused by fishing. It is proposed that no allowance be made in
the new QMA.
31
The issue of fishing-related mortality for hoki by-catch species such as white warehou will
be addressed in the deepwater fisheries plan for ‘other sources of mortality caused by
fishing’.
93
Report from the Fishery Assessment Plenary, May 2007: Stock assessments and yield estimates, MFish Science
Group, May 2007
365 of 397
Total Allowable Commercial Catch
32
White warehou catches in WWA5 and WWA6 have been less than the TACC, sometimes
significantly, for every year since the species was introduced into the QMS in 1998-99.
WWA5
Fishing Year
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
33
WWA6
Fishing Year
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
% Caught
60
52
33
43
47
54
74
55
% Caught
84
44
24
45
93
43
89
51
MFish considers there are two primary reasons for catches being less than the TACC. The
first is economic reasons, and the second is that part of the ACE was unavailable for fishing
as it was held by the Crown until 1 October 2003.
Social and Cultural Well-being factors
34
The information MFish has on the impact on social and cultural well-being factors that
might arise from the amalgamation of the two QMAs and the setting of a TAC is unknown.
WWA5 & 6 is not a significant recreational or Maori customary fishery. As stated earlier,
little is known about recent or current harvest levels in these fisheries.
Economic well-being and factors
35
When WWA5 & 6 are amalgamated into WWA5B on 1 October 2007, the fishery will
account for about 60% of total white warehou landings ((2005/06 figures). Eight companies
hold 80% of WWA5B quota; the remainder is settlement quota held by mandated iwi
organisations (MIOs).
36
Because white warehou is predominantly a bycatch species, total white warehou catch is
dependent upon fishing patterns for the target trawl species of hoki and silver warehou, and
to a lesser extent hake, ling and scampi. The 2007 Plenary notes that target fishing on white
warehou has been reported from around Sub-Antarctic waters and on the west coast of the
South Island, with the best catch rates recorded in the southern areas. Target fisheries
accounted for only 8% of the total white warehou catch for the years 1988-89 to 1994-95.
37
Although fishing effort focussed on white warehou has been much reduced in these areas in
recent years (the hoki TACC has been reduced considerably over this time), catch per unit
effort (CPUEs) have remained constant or improved over the same period. White warehou
is predominantly a bycatch species for the hoki fishery. As such, catch volumes are
influenced by fishing patterns for target species.
38
In the past, WWA has been a highly preferred species in Japan due to its seasonally high fat
content and its similarity to a local species, Ao-hirasi. In recent years, a fall in price in the
Japanese market has substantially reduced the profit associated with fishing WWA, so
366 of 397
vessels have spent less time fishing this species and more time fishing other species
providing better net returns to the vessel.
39
Unlike most trawled species, the fat content of WWA is a determining factor in the ultimate
price. Environmental conditions have resulted in the Southern area WWA having a
particularly low fat content in recent years which impacts on the economic benefit obtained
from WWA catch.
40
The amalgamation of WWA 5 and 6 into WWA5B and the setting of the proposed TAC and
TACC is likely to increase the economic well-being of quota owners by enabling them to
catch the TACC more efficiently.
41
The amalgamation of WWA5 & 6 is likely to provide for the enhanced utilisation of the
WWA resource while also enhancing the ability to manage these fisheries sustainably. The
amalgamation is likely to:
●
allow for fish to be targeted more efficiently be enabling fishers to better
respond to changes in white warehou distribution over the entire stock area;
●
remove constraints on harvesting activities on or near the boundary of the
two areas where the commercial fishery is concentrated;
●
remove the need for fishers to obtain additional Annual Catch Entitlement
(ACE) and/or pay deemed values to manage catch across the two QMAs;
●
increase the economic well-being of quota owners by enabling them to catch
the TACC more efficiently.
●
enable better decisions to be made about the impact of fishing on the
sustainability of the stock, including the impact of the Total Allowable Catch
(TAC) and Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) on the stock;
●
allow for the entire biological range of the stock to be fished, rather than
fishing effort being concentrated on certain areas; and
●
result in better information about the overall impact of fishing on the stock as
any potential for misreporting of catch between QMA5 & 6 will be removed.
Crown-held Quota
42
The Crown held 447 tonnes of WWA5 ACE until 1 October 2003, at which time it was
reallocated to quota owners. Prior to this the Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) generated by
the Crown quota in WWA5 has not been caught in any fishing year since white warehou
was introduced into the QMS in 1998. This contributed to the TAC and TACC being
undercaught in previous years.
367 of 397
Stock Status and Biological Characteristics
43
The 2007 Fishery Assessment Plenary reported that it is not known whether recent catches
of white warehou stocks are sustainable or if they are at levels that will allow the stock to
move towards a size that will support the maximum sustainable yield. No assessments are
available for any stocks of white warehou, therefore estimates of biomass and yield are not
available
Statutory Considerations
44
MFish considers the options proposed are consistent with the obligations stated under the
1996 Act. Appendix I contains a discussion on how the proposal meets specific statutory
criteria. The proposal recommends that you set the TAC under s 13(2)(a) and the TACC
under s 20(1).
368 of 397
APPENDIX I – STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
45
In reviewing the possible setting of a TAC and TACC for WWA5B the following statutory
considerations have been taken into account. In accordance with the Fisheries Act 1996
(FA96):
46
When setting or varying the TAC and TACC for a stock under the FA96, you are required
to consider a series of principles and factors:
a)
Section 13(2) MFish recommends that you set a TAC pursuant to s 13(2)(a) to
maintain WWA5B at or above a level that can produce MSY. An assessment of the
current status of the entire WWA5B stock relative to BMSY is not available and no
new stock assessment information is available this year.
b)
MFish considers that the proposed TAC should maintain the stock to a biomass that
can produce MSY. The specific considerations set out in s 13(2)(a) include having
regard to the interdependence of stocks.
i)
The interdependence of stocks for WWA5B (as required by s 13(2)(a)).
WWA is predominantly a bycatch species, total white warehou catch is
dependent upon fishing patterns for the target trawl species of hoki and silver
warehou, and to a lesser extent hake, ling and scampi. Setting the TAC for
WWA5B should not affect those stocks. However, any TAC adjustment for
those stocks, in particular may affect WWA5B catch.
c)
Sections 5(a) and (b) require the Act to be interpreted consistently with New
Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing and with the provisions of the
Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. Provisions of general
international instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) and the United Nations Agreement on the Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks 1995 (Fish Stocks Agreement) have been
implemented through the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1996. MFish considers that
the options are consistent with both New Zealand’s international obligations relating
to fishing and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement
Act 1992.
d)
Section 8 of the Act states the purpose of the Act as being to provide for the
utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability, and defines the
meanings of utilisation and sustainability. The management option presented in the
IPP seeks to achieve the purpose of the Act. The setting of a TAC for WWA5B that
is the sum of the WWA5 & 6 TACs will result in an enhanced ability to provide for
the utilisation of the fishery while ensuring sustainability. It will, among other
things, allow for fish to be targeted more efficiently by enabling fishers to better
respond to changes in WWA distribution, remove constraints on harvesting activities
at or near the boundary of the two areas where the commercial fishery is
concentrated, and allow for the entire range of the stock to be fished, rather than
fishing effort being concentrated on certain areas.
e)
Sections 9(a) and (b) require you to take into account that associated or dependent
species (those that are not harvested) be maintained at or above a level that ensures
their long-term viability, and that the biological diversity of the aquatic environment
should be maintained. The WWA5B fishery is predominantly a bycatch of the hoki
369 of 397
fishery. MFish will be providing advice to you on management options to maintain
or reduce the TAC/TACC for the western stock of hoki. As none of the options for
the hoki stock recommend an increase in fishing effort, the likely adverse impact on
bycatch species such as white warehou is likely to be small. Similarly, the prposals
contained in this paper are unlikely to have additional adverse implications for
trawling on seabirds or marine mammals. MFish therefore considers that the
proposed TAC for WWA5B is unlikely to have any impact on the long-term
viability of associated or dependent species or on the biological diversity of the
aquatic environment.
f)
Section 9(c) requires you to take into account the principle that habitat of particular
importance for fisheries management should be protected. White warehou is
predominantly a bycatch of the hoki fishery, and as such catches in the western stock
are harvested using mid-water trawl gear, which is unlikely to result in trawl
disturbances which may alter the benthic habitat.
g)
Section 10 of the Act sets out the information principles, which require that
decisions be based on the best available information, taking into account any
uncertainty in that information, and applying caution when information is uncertain,
unreliable, or inadequate. In accordance with s 10(d), the absence of or any
uncertainty in any 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. The status of the WWA5B stock
complex relative to BMSY is uncertain. In the body of the paper, MFish has
endeavoured to set out the relevant uncertainty in, and inadequacy of, that
information so that the appropriate caution can be applied in making your decision.
MFish considers that the proposals provided are derived from the best available
information and cover an appropriate range of caution in response to the uncertainty
in that information.
h)
Section 11(1)(a): Before setting the TAC for WWA5B, you must take into account
any effects of fishing on any stock and the aquatic environment. No information
about any effects of fishing on any stock or on the aquatic environment additional to
that discussed elsewhere in the paper is considered relevant to the consideration of
sustainability measures for WW5B at this time.
i)
Section 11(1)(b): Before setting the TAC for WWA5B, you must take into account
any existing controls under the 1996 Act that apply to the stock or area concerned.
Pre-amalgamation of WWA5 and WWA6 into WWA5B, there was a TAC and
TACC for WWA5 and WWA6 respectively, and an allowance for incidental fishingrelated mortality. Due to the amalgamation, a new TAC and TACC is required to be
set for WWA5B. No other controls under the Act apply specifically to WWA5B.
j)
Section 11(1)(c): Before setting the TAC for WWA5B, you must take into account
the natural variability of the stock. No biomass estimates are available for white
warehou, therefore it is unknown whether the fishery is prone to fluctuations in
biomass over time.
k)
Sections 11(2)(a) and (b): Before varying the TAC for WWA5B, you must have
regard to any provisions of any regional policy or plan under the Resource
Management Act 1991 and any management strategy or plan under the Conservation
Act 1997 that apply to the coastal marine area and you consider relevant. MFish is
not aware of any such provisions that should be taken into account for WWA5B.
370 of 397
l)
Section 11(2)(c): Before varying the TAC for WWA5B, you must have regard to
sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 that apply to the coastal
marine area and you consider relevant. The distribution of white warehou in the
WWA5B QMA does not intersect with the Park boundaries.
m)
Section 11(2A)(b): Before setting the TAC for WWA5B, you must take account of
any relevant and approved fisheries plans. There is currently no fisheries plan in
place in the white warehou fishery.
n)
Sections 11(2A)(a) and (c): Before setting the TAC for WWA5B, you must take
into account any conservation or fisheries service, or any decision not to require such
services. MFish does not consider that existing or proposed services materially affect
the proposed TAC options. No decision has been made not to require a service that
would be relevant to the WWA5B fishery.
o)
Section 20 and 21 specify a number of matters that must be taken into account when
setting or varying a TACC. Section 21 requires you to allow for non-commercial
Maori and recreational fishing interests, and other sources of fishing-related
mortality when setting or varying the TACC. Allowance has bee made for the
interests of recreational and customary fishers in proposing the TACCs. These
interests and other sources of fishing-related mortality are discussed further in the
main body of this paper.
p)
Section 21(4) also requires that any mätaitai reserve or closure/restriction under s
186A to facilitate customary fishing be taken into account. No mätaitai reserves or s
186A measures intersect with the WWA fishery.
q)
Section 21(5) also requires that any regulations to prohibit fishing made under s 311
be taken into account when setting allowances for recreational interests. No
restrictions under s 311 have been placed on fishing in any area within WWA5B.
371 of 397
372 of 397
RUBYFISH (RBY 8) TECHNICAL TAC AND TACC
ADJUSTMENT – FINAL ADVICE
1
This paper provides you with the Ministry of Fisheries recommendation for a technical
alteration to the total allowable catch (TAC) and total allowable commercial catch (TACC)
for ruby fish in area 8 (RBY8) from 55 tonnes to 6 tonnes, to correct an administrative error.
Background information
2
As part of the October 2006 sustainability round a number of stocks, classed as low
knowledge stocks, had their TACs, TACCs and their deemed value rates adjusted. The new
TACs and TACCs were set using an average of landings over the past seven years. In the
initial position paper (IPP) of 20 June 2006 the proposed TACC for RBY8 was set at 5
tonnes.
3
Following receipt of submissions on the IPP of 20 June 2006, you were provided with an
option of setting TACs and TACCs with an additional 10% to take account of the fact that
the previous seven years landing data varied in the early years as fishers got used to the
species being part of the QMS. This meant the TAC and TACC for RBY8 would become
5.5 tonnes, which should have been rounded up to 6 tonnes. However, an error in the
analysis table listed the new TAC and TACC as 55 tonnes and this error was transferred to
the Final Advice Paper (FAP) and was subsequently gazetted.
4
The IPP of 19 June 2007 proposed that the TAC and TACC for RBY8 be adjusted from 55
tonnes to 6 tonnes.
Submissions received
5
Submissions regarding this proposal were received from:
a)
Anton’s Seafoods Limited (Anton’s)
b)
Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC)
c)
Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc (ECO)
d)
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC)
6
All submissions supported the proposal to adjust the TAC and TACC from 55 tonnes to 6
tonnes.
7
Anton’s note that in the last three fishing seasons, catch levels from RBY8 have exceeded
the TACC and have been as much as 8 tonnes 94. Anton’s has requested the TAC and TACC
is set at 20 tonnes rather than the 6 tonnes as proposed in the IPP of 19 June 2007. Anton’s
believes this will permit further development of this fishery without compromising the
sustainability of the stock.
94
Prior to the start of the current fishing season the TAC and TACC for RBY8 was 1 tonne.
373 of 397
8
MFish notes that the purpose of the IPP was not to review to the RBY8 TAC and TACC but
to correct an administrative error made when the TAC and TACC were reviewed and
increased in 2006. Therefore, MFish considers Anton’s request is beyond the scope of this
paper. MFish does note that when the TAC and TACC were reviewed in 2006 they were
subsequently increased from 1 tonne to 6 tonnes to reflect an average of RBY8 landings
over the past seven years. There was insufficient information available to suggest that a
higher TAC or TACC should be set for RBY8 at that time.
Management option
9
MFish recommends that the TAC and TACC for RBY8 be amended from 55 tonnes to 6
tonnes so that it reflects the original proposal detailed in the low knowledge stocks IPP of
20 June 2006.
10
MFish considers this correction to the TAC and TACC is permitted under section 13 of the
Interpretation Act 1999. Section 13 of the Interpretation Act provides that the power to do
any act or thing may be exercised to correct an error in a previous exercise of the power
even though the power is not generally capable of being exercised more than once. The
authority which was used to approve the mistaken TACC of 55 tonnes can therefore be used
again to correct that error.
Assessment of management option
11
The correction to the TAC and TACC may have implications for commercial quota owners
who own RBY8 quota shares particularly if they invested in these quota shares on the basis
of the incorrect TACC increase. However an assessment of quota trades for the period
August 2006 to April 2007 indicates that no quota shares have been traded during this
period. Further, no submissions were received from RBY8 quota owners claiming they will
be affected by the proposed correction to the TAC and TACC.
12
An analysis of landings of RBY8 against the TACC indicates that between 1 October 2006
and 30 July 2007 only 351kg of RBY8 has been harvested. This is in comparison to 8,224
kg reported for the same period last year. This suggests that fishers have not deliberately set
out to harvest the higher RBY8 TACC.
Statutory considerations
13
As discussed in paragraph 5 above, MFish considers this correction is permitted under
section 13 of the Interpretation Act 1999.
374 of 397
375 of 397
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Orange roughy (ORH 1)
MFish recommends that you:
EITHER
Option 1:
a)
Retain the TAC at 1 470 tonnes;
AND
b)
Retain the TACC at 1 400 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of zero for customary and recreational fishing interests
and an allowance of 70 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
d)
Request that industry adhere to the sub-area and feature limits listed in the
Option 1 column in Table 1 (pg 50), and request that industry continue to
submit comprehensive catch reports by feature and sub-area.
OR
Option 2:
a)
Set the TAC at 1 208 tonnes (an 18% reduction);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 1 150 tonnes (an 18% reduction);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of zero for customary and recreational fishing interests
and an allowance of 58 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
d)
Request that industry adhere to the sub-area and feature limits listed in the
Option 2A column in Table 1 (pg 50), and request that industry continue to
submit comprehensive catch reports by feature and sub-area.
OR
376 of 397
e)
Request that industry adhere to the sub-area and feature limits listed in the
Option 2B column in Table 1 (pg 50), and request that industry continue to
submit comprehensive catch reports by feature and sub-area.
OR
Option 3
a)
Set the TAC at 914 tonnes (a 38% reduction);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 870 tonnes (a 38% reduction);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of zero for customary and recreational fishing interests
and an allowance of 44 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
d)
Request that industry adhere to the sub-area and feature limits listed in the
Option 3 column in Table 1 (pg 50), and request that industry continue to
submit comprehensive catch reports by feature and sub-area.
Orange roughy (ORH 3B)
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Note that Option 1, the status quo as set out in the table on page 94 is
available to you, but is not recommended by MFish.
a)
Set the TAC at 11 025 tonnes (a 9% reduction);
AND EITHER
Option 2:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 10 500 tonnes (a 9% reduction);
AND
c)
Request industry to alter the voluntary catch split arrangements as detailed in
the second column of the table on page 95;
OR
377 of 397
Option 3:
a)
Set the ORH 3B TAC at 9 975 tonnes (a 17% reduction);
b)
Set the TACC at 9 500 tonnes (a 17% reduction);
c)
Request industry to alter the voluntary catch split arrangements as detailed in
the third column of the table on page 95;
AND
AND
AND
Additional measures common to all options are to:
a)
Request industry to spread catch between individual features within the
broader sub-area component catch limits;
b)
Request that, as far as possible, fishers targeting orange roughy on features in
ORH 3B follow known trawl tracks;
c)
Request industry to confirm the voluntary agreement on the new catch limits
within ORH 3B; and
i)
acknowledge the objectives and operational implementation of the
Deepwater Fisheries Management Agreement prior to the 1 October
2007 fishing year;
AND
AND
ii)
continue to submit annual updates and specific DWG annual
agreements that pertain to the ORH 3B fishery to MFish;
iii)
continue to submit monthly monitoring reports pertaining to catch
levels by both sub-stock and sub-area component to MFish;
iv)
continue to notify MFish when catch reaches 80% of the sub-stock
and sub-area component limits, and also notify MFish when any limit
has been reached;
v)
request that DWG continue to work with MFish Science group to
develop and present a stock assessment research programme for the
Sub-Antarctic;
vi)
request that DWG continue to work with MFish Science and
Operations Groups to develop alternative management options, with
associated research requirements, for the Chatham Rise stocks.
378 of 397
Orange roughy (ORH 7B)
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Note that Option 1, the status quo as set out in the table on page 130 is
available to you but is not recommended by MFish.
a)
Set the TAC at 115.5 tonnes (a 5% increase);
b)
Retain the TACC at 110 tonnes;
c)
Provide an allowance of zero for customary and recreational fishing interests
and 5.5 tonnes (5% of the TACC) for other sources of fishing-related
mortality;
d)
Note if you choose this option the Ministry of Fisheries Chief Executive
intends to exercise his powers to require all vessels fishing targeting orange
roughy in ORH 7B to report on TCEPR forms.
a)
Set the TAC at 52.5 tonnes (a 52% reduction);
b)
Set the TACC at 50 tonnes (a 55% reduction);
c)
Provide an allowance of zero for customary and recreational fishing interests
and 2.5 tonnes (5% of the TACC) for other sources of fishing related
mortality;
d)
Note if you choose this option the Ministry of Fisheries Chief Executive
intends to exercise his powers to require all vessels fishing targeting orange
roughy in ORH 7B to report on TCEPR forms;
AND EITHER
Option 2:
AND
AND
AND
OR
Option 3:
AND
AND
AND
379 of 397
OR
Option 4:
a)
Agree to effectively close the fishery in setting the TAC and TACC at 1
tonne, and providing an allowance of zero for customary and recreational
fishing interests and other sources of fishing related mortality.
Hoki
MFish recommends that you:
EITHER
Option 1: (status quo)
a)
Retain the TAC at 101 040 tonnes;
AND
b)
Retain the TACC at 100 000 tonnes
AND
c)
Retain the existing allowances of:
(i)
20 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
20 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 1000 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
AND
d)
Request industry to retain the existing catch split arrangement so that 60% of
the TACC will be harvested from the eastern stock and the remaining 40% of
the TACC will be harvested from the western stock.
a)
Set the TAC at 81 040 tonnes (a 20% reduction);
OR
Option 2:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 80 000 tonnes (a 20% reduction);
AND
a)
Provide for an allowance of:
(i)
20 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
20 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 1 000 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
AND
c)
Request industry to alter the voluntary catch split arrangement so that 60
000 tonnes (75% of the TACC) will be harvested from the eastern stock and
20 000 tonnes (25% of the TACC) will be harvested from the western stock.
380 of 397
OR
Option 3:
a)
Retain the TAC at 101 040 tonnes;
AND
b)
Retain the TACC at 100 000 tonnes;
AND
(i)
c)
Retain the existing allowances of:
(i)
20 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
20 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 1 000 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality
Request industry alter the voluntary catch split arrangement so that 65% of
the catch will be harvested from the eastern stock and that this additional 5
000 tonnes is caught from the Cook Strait fishery so as to protect juvenile
hoki found on the Chatham Rise.
Oreo (OEO 1)
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Note that Option 1 (status quo) is available to you, but not recommended by
MFish;
AND
Option 2:
a)
Set the TAC at 2 500 tonnes (a 50% reduction);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 2 500 tonnes (a 50% reduction);
AND
c)
Retain allowances for customary and recreational fishing interests and other
fishing related mortality at zero.
381 of 397
Squid (SQU 1T)
MFish recommends that you:
EITHER
Option 1 (MFish preferred option):
a)
Retain the existing TAC and TACC of 44,740.88 tonnes;
AND
b)
Provide an allowance of zero for customary and recreational fishing interests
and for other sources of fishing related mortality;
a)
Set the TAC and TACC for SQU1T at 53,689 tonnes (a 20% increase);
OR
Option 2:
AND
b)
Provide an allowance of zero for customary and recreational fishing interests
and for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
c)
Note that this option reflects the in-season increases provided to quota
owners in recent fishing seasons.
a)
Set the TAC and TACC at 58,163.15 tonnes (a 30% increase);
OR
Option 3:
AND
b)
Provide an allowance of zero for customary and recreational fishing interests
and for other sources of fishing related mortality.
North Island Eels (SFE 20-23, LFE 20-23)
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Agree that the TACs for these North Island eel stocks should be varied under
section 14(3) of the Fisheries Act 1996;
b)
Confirm the management strategy, as agreed to by the previous Minister,
which is to improve the stock structure (i.e. size composition) and abundance
AND
382 of 397
by 2014, while bringing to a halt any decline in the fishery over the short
term;
AND
c)
Confirm that the intent of the management strategy is to ensure
sustainability, improve the availability of eels to non-commercial fishers, and
improve the relationship with interdependent stocks;
d)
Note that MFish proposes you use a non-proportional approach to vary
allowances (under section 21 of the Act) and TACCs (under section 20 of the
Act);
AND
AND
For SFE 20
a)
Set the TAC at 148 tonnes (a 30% reduction);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 86 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
30 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
28 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 4 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
For LFE 20
a)
Set the TAC at 39 tonnes (a 42% reduction);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 19 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
10 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
8 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 2 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
383 of 397
For SFE 21
a)
Set the TAC at 181 tonnes (a 14% reduction):
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 134 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
24 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
19 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 4 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
For LFE 21
a)
Set the TAC at 60 tonnes (a 35% reduction):
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 32 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
16 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
10 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 2 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
For SFE 22
a)
Set the TAC at 121 tonnes (a 10% reduction):
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 94 tonnes;
AND
d)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
14 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
11 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 2 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
384 of 397
AND
For LFE 22
a)
Set the TAC at 34 tonnes (a 37% reduction):
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 21 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
6 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
5 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 2 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
For SFE 23
a)
Set the TAC at 36 tonnes (a 28% reduction):
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 23 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
6 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
5 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 2 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
AND
For LFE 23
a)
Set the TAC at 34 tonnes (a 48% reduction):
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 9 tonnes;
AND
385 of 397
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
14 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
9 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 2 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality.
Flatfish (FLA 3)
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Note that a TAC for FLA 3 has not been previously set under the Fisheries
Act 1996;
AND EITHER
Option 1 (status quo):
a)
Set the TAC at 2 893 tonnes;
AND
b)
Retain the TACC at 2 681 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
150 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 57 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
OR
Option 2:
a)
Set the TAC at 1 974 tonnes;
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 1 780 tonnes (a 34% reduction);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
150 tonnes for recreation fishing interests; and
(iii) 39 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
OR
386 of 397
Option 3a:
a)
Set the TAC at 1 617 tonnes;
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 1 430 tonnes (a 47% reduction);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
150 tonnes for recreation fishing interests; and
(iii) 32 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
OR
Option 3b:
a)
Set the TAC at 1 587 tonnes;
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 1 430 tonnes (a 47% reduction);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
120 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 32 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
OR
Option 4a:
a)
Set the TAC at 980 tonnes:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 805 tonnes (a 70% reduction);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
150 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 20 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
OR
387 of 397
Option 4b:
a)
Set the TAC at 897.5 tonnes:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 805 tonnes (a 70% reduction);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
67.5 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 20 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality.
Red Cod (RCO 3)
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Note that a TAC for RCO 3 has not been previously set under the Fisheries
Act 1996;
AND EITHER
Option 1 (status quo):
a)
Set the TAC at 13 299 tonnes;
AND
b)
Retain the TACC at 12 396 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of :
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
280 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 618 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
OR
Option 2a:
a)
Set the TAC at 9 735 tonnes:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 9 000 tonnes (a 27% reduction):
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
388 of 397
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
280 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
450 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
OR
Option 2b:
a)
Set the TAC at 9 658 tonnes:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 9000 tonnes (a 27% reduction):
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
203 tonnes for recreational fishing interests;
(iii) 450 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
OR
Option 3a:
a)
Set the TAC at 7 635 tonnes:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 7 000 tonnes (a 44% reduction):
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
280 tonnes for recreational fishing interests;
(iii) 350 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
OR
Option 3b:
a)
Set the TAC at 7 513 tonnes:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 7 000 tonnes (a 44% reduction):
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
158 tonnes for recreational fishing interests;
(iii) 350 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
OR
389 of 397
Option 4:
a)
Set the TAC at 4 930 tonnes:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 4 600 tonnes (a 63% reduction):
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
5 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
95 tonnes for recreational fishing interests;
(iii) 230 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality;
AND
d)
Reduce the red cod recreational daily bag limit in FMAs 3 & 5 from 30 to 10
per day.
Tarakihi (TAR 1)
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Note that Options 1(b) and 1(c) as set out in the table on page 296 are both
available to you but are not recommended by MFish.
AND EITHER
Option 1(a) – (status quo)
a)
Retain the TAC at 1 959.195 tonnes;
AND
b)
Retain the TACC at 1 399. 195 tonnes;
AND
c)
Retain the existing allowances of:
(i)
70.000 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
470.000 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 20.000 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality.
OR
390 of 397
Option 2(a):
a)
Set the TAC at 2 029.195 tonnes (a 4% increase);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 1 447.483 tonnes (a 3% increase);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
73.000 tonnes for customary fishing interests (a 4% increase);
(ii)
487.000 tonnes for recreational fishing interests (a 4% increase); and
(iii) 21.712 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality (a 9%
increase);
OR
Option 2(b):
a)
Set the TAC at 2 029.195 tonnes (a 4% increase);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 1 467.188 tonnes (a 5% increase);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
70.000 tonnes for customary fishing interests (no change);
(ii)
470.000 tonnes for recreational fishing interests (no change); and
(iii) 22.007 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality (a 10%
increase);
OR
Option 2(c):
a)
Set the TAC at 2 029.195 tonnes (a 4% increase);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 1 432.705 tonnes (a 2% increase);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
75.000 tonnes for customary fishing interests (a 7% increase);
(ii)
500.000 tonnes for recreational fishing interests (a 6% increase); and
391 of 397
(iii)
21.490 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality (a 7%
increase);
OR
Option 3(a):
a)
Set the TAC at 2 099.195 tonnes (a 7% increase);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 1 495.759 tonnes (a 7% increase);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
76.000 tonnes for customary fishing interests (a 9% increase);
(ii)
505.000 tonnes for recreational fishing interests (a 7% increase); and
(iii) 22.436 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality (a 12%
increase);
OR
Option 3(b):
a)
Set the TAC at 2 099.195 tonnes (a 7% increase);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 1 536.153 tonnes (a 10% increase);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
70.000 tonnes for customary fishing interests (no change);
(ii)
470.000 tonnes for recreational fishing interests (no change); and
(iii) 23.042 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality (a 15%
increase);
OR
Option 3(c):
a)
Set the TAC at 2 099.195 tonnes (a 7% increase);
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 1 467.188 tonnes (a 5% increase);
392 of 397
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
80.000 tonnes for customary fishing interests (a 14% increase);
(ii)
530.000 tonnes for recreational fishing interests (a 13% increase); and
(iii) 22.007 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality (a 10%
increase).
School Shark (SCH 1)
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Note that a TAC for SCH1 has not been previously set under the Fisheries
Act 1996;
a)
Set the TAC at 866 tonnes
AND EITHER
Option 1:
AND
b)
Retain the existing TACC at 668.47 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
99 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
66 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 33 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality.
OR
Option 2: Proportional
a)
Set the TAC at 893 tonnes;
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 689 tonnes (a 3% increase);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
102 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
68 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 34 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality.
393 of 397
OR
Option 2: Non-proportional
a)
Set the TAC at 893 tonnes;
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 693 tonnes (a 4% increase);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
99 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
66 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 35 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality.
OR
Option 3: Proportional
a)
Set the TAC at 944 tonnes;
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 728 tonnes (a 9% increase);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
108 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
72 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 36 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality.
OR
Option 3: Non-Proportional
a)
Set the TAC at 944 tonnes;
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 742 tonnes (an 11 % increase);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
99 tonnes for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
66 tonnes for recreational fishing interests; and
394 of 397
(iii)
37 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality.
Dredge Oyster (OYS 7C)
MFish recommends that you:
EITHER
Option 1 (status quo)
a)
Retain the TAC at 5 tonnes;
AND
b)
Retain the TACC at 2 tonnes;
AND
c)
Retain the existing allowances of:
(i)
1 tonne for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
1 tonne for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 1 tonne for other sources of fishing-related mortality.
a)
Set the TAC at 25 tonnes;
OR
Option 2:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 20.5 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide for an allowance of:
(i)
1 tonne for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
1 tonne for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 2.5 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality (10% of
TAC).
OR
Option 3: (MFish’s preferred option)
a)
Set the TAC at 50 tonnes;
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 43 tonnes;
AND
395 of 397
c)
Provide for an allowance of:
(i)
1 tonne for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
1 tonne for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 5 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality (10% of TAC).
a)
Set the TAC at 100 tonnes.
OR
Option 4:
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 88 tonnes;
AND
c)
Provide for an allowance of:
(i)
1 tonne for customary fishing interests;
(ii)
1 tonne for recreational fishing interests; and
(iii) 10 tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality (10% of TAC).
White Warehou (WWA 5B)
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Set the TAC at 2 621 tonnes (the sum of the existing TACs for WWA5 and
WWA6),;
AND
b)
Set the TACC at 2 617 tonnes (the sum of the existing TACCs for WWA5
and WWA6);
AND
c)
Provide an allowance of:
(i)
(ii)
(iv)
2 tonnes for recreational fishing interests;
2 tonnes for customary fishing interests; and
zero tonnes for other sources of fishing-related mortality.
396 of 397
Rubyfish (RBY 8)
MFish recommends that you:
a)
Note that the final advice that MFish provided to you for RBY8 for the 1
October 2006/07 fishing year, and your subsequent decision, included an
administrative numerical error in incorrectly specifying the TAC and TACC
as 55 tonnes instead of the correct figure of 6 tonnes;
AND
b)
Set the TAC at 6 tonnes;
AND
c)
Set the TACC at 6 tonnes;
AND
d)
Provide an allowance of zero for customary and recreational fishing interests
and for other sources of fishing related mortality.
Russell Burnard
Manager Regulatory and Information
APPROVED / NOT APPROVED / APPROVED AS AMENDED
Hon Jim Anderton
Minister of Fisheries
/
/ 2007
397 of 397