Hui Report July 2006 Page 7

Contents
Friday 21st July
Alternative Management Strategies
California Experience
The Guardians of the Sea Charitable Trust

Friday 21st July Around 43 people were present for the beginning of the second day of the hui, although more arrived during the course of the morning. Naida Glavish had to leave to go to work, but she did give everyone an insight into the events leading up to deciding how Naumai marae was chosen for this particular hui.

Naida expressed appreciation to John Retimana for organising the hui. Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua was 100% behind the Hokianga Accord and fully supported Ngapuhi in regards to the Hokianga Accord initiatives. Naida committed to working with Sonny in relation to Iwi/Crown relationship model presented the previous evening by Tepania Kingi. Naida thoroughly enjoyed the hui, she finds them therapeutic and is keen for more. A memorable waitaia by Naida, Sonny Tau, John Retimana, Tepania Kingi and Lucy Te Awhitu followed Naida’s korero.

Kim is a fisheries consultant and ex-MFish regional manager with a particular interest in non-commercial fisheries and policy development. Kim had attended the ‘Sharing the Fish’ conference in Perth, in March 2006 on behalf of Ngapuhi, the Hokianga Accord, the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council and option4.

Kim found the Perth conference interesting as the main theme was the allocation of fish stocks. He heard a number of presentations on alternative ways fisheries were being managed in other parts of the world.

As fisheries worldwide were becoming fully fished, or overfished, there was a need to agree on an allocation process to reduce the conflict caused by having competing interests in the fisheries. Conflict has occurred between sectors, within sectors and there seems to be more recognition of tangata whenua or ‘first nation’ fishers.

In New Zealand allocation has been traditionally achieved by area management, catch allocations and/or a combination of both of these approaches.

New South Wales

In the Australian state of New South Wales havens had been created for use by non-commercial fishers only. Licensing of recreational fishers had provided funds for improvements through a trust. All monitored fisheries had improved, in some cases by 500%. Compensation was paid to selected commercial fishermen to leave the industry. There had been problems with some of these same fishermen returning to commercial fishing and this has caused some conflict. Traditional/customary fishing is not a major issue in NSW but may become an issue in the future. Overall this system seems to have been successful.

Tasmania

Rock lobster (crayfish) in Tasmania has been allocated on a proportional basis whereby recreational fishers had been allocated 10% of the total catch and commercial 90%. As the fishery increases or declines each sector gets their 10/90% share. A lower limit has been specified for the recreational share so that it can never go below that level. If the fishery declined to that level then commercial fishing would cease in order to allow recreational fishing to continue. Unlike in New Zealand, over 80% of recreational fishers surveyed supported the proportional allocation system.

The scallop fishery in Tasmania was closed from 1985 to 2005. During this time there had been some commercial fishing but no recreational harvesting of scallops. Since 2005 there had been different seasons for recreational and commercial fishers and also separate fishing areas, commercial fishers were not permitted inshore. Recreational fishers are allowed to take 40 scallops per day, by hand, as dredges are banned. There seems to be a high level of support for this management regime.

Canada

Halibut is a flatfish that can grow very large. Problems arose in Canada when the recreational catch doubled between 1990 and 2000. Consideration was given to allocating 9% of the total catch to recreational fishers but this caused huge conflict.

In 2003 the Canadian Minister of Fisheries allocated 12% to recreational fishers with the provision that recreational could lease their unused allocation to commercial fishers. This was a lucrative arrangement in 2004-05, as the recreational did not catch their full entitlement. In 2006 recreational fishers caught their full allocation and the issue in 2007 is whether recreational fishers are likely to exceed their allocation. The debate now is whether recreational fishers needed to purchase extra quota, which meant a license fee to fund that. They could reduce bag limits or have fishing seasons or limited areas. Kim would be watching developments in this fishery with interest.

Alaska

When allocations of fisheries resources were first made in Alaska no account was made for ‘first nation’ or traditional fishers. Similar to New Zealand, the courts overruled the initial decision. Indigenous people have now been allocated 7.5% of the available quota. This was allocated to a village rather than a group. The benefit accrued to the whole community as opposed to a particular group.

Fisheries managers were concerned about the social issues associated with giving away quota as they recognised the importance of fishing to thousands of little fishing villages that had depended on fishing to survive, over hundreds of years.

The outcome is communities fully supporting themselves, facilitating training and management regimes for young people to enter into commercial fishing and buying up quota so the asset remains within the community rather than sold to corporate interests, as had happened in New Zealand.

Kim pointed out that overseas management regimes seem to be more concerned about the social issues associated with allocating fisheries resources than the managers in New Zealand. In New Zealand the system is driven by economics. The social impacts of New Zealand’s management policies do not seem to influence their decisions. The most graphic example of this is was when many part-time fishermen were denied any opportunity to continue commercial fishing in 1983, prior to the introduction of the Quota Management System. Many of those fishermen were Northland based Maori. The impacts of that decision are still being felt today around Northland and other small coastal communities.

Challenges for Catch Allocation

The Ministry of Fisheries is currently reviewing the way allocation of fisheries is made. People need to consider the following points when deciding how they could get the best outcome:

Other Issues

‘Recreational’ fishing was again raised as being a misnomer. Recognition needed to be given to the sustenance, food gathering aspects of what is classified by the authorities as ‘recreational’ fishing. Maori and non-Maori at this and other Accord hui objected to being classified as ‘recreational’ fishers.

Licensing was raised as a regime that had not worked well for Aboriginal people in Australia. Kim noted that licenses are issued on a twelve-month basis in Canada and could be removed at the Minister’s discretion. This contrasted with people’s attitude to fishing in New Zealand; where it is a way of life for many people, it is a freedom. The common law right to fish stems from the Magna Carta. People want abundant fisheries and not lose access rights.

Summary

Allocation is the major issue confronting fisheries managers. Historically New Zealand’s management regime has been based on allocating catch rights rather than designating areas where different sectors can fish.

The problem with proportional allocation is that if the fishery declines and one sector takes 90% of the available fish and they have caused the decline, then 90% of the cuts to catch should be attributed to that sector. Under the current regime there is no incentive to actively manage each sector’s share to conserve fish.

There are some examples overseas of active management of non-commercial catch that could be applied here. However, the system would need to be fair to get the support of fishers to ensure its success.

Feedback Session

Unique to New Zealand’s fisheries management regime is that Maori now own more than 50% of the commercial fishing rights. Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua had expressed their desire that, despite their commercial interests, they have a responsibility to ensure people have access to fish for food. Tikanga prevents Maori from taking too much fish if sustainability is at risk.

Kim noted that with the advent of the fisheries settlement and the goal of “more fish in the water”, we now have a commercial rights holder that has indicated it would try and balance social and commercial factors. This would make the next ten years of fisheries management interesting.

It was pointed out that people should consider their responsibilities to fisheries. Without fish in the water a ‘right’ was meaningless. Maori had tikanga, non-Maori needed to encourage people to fish in a more responsible manner.

The contrast between the overseas case studies presented and the actual situation in New Zealand was that the examples given were of fisheries that were at optimum, or at the very least, at acceptable biomass levels. Most of the important inshore shared fisheries in New Zealand were well below what the law required (Bmsy) and what was considered acceptable, below a biomass level that would sustain maximum sustainable yield, Bmsy.

If fisheries are being managed to rebuild depleted stocks it tended to occur over a longer period of time than what non-commercial fishers find acceptable. Snapper 8, the west coast snapper fishery had been below Bmsy for more than 20 years and rebuilding very slowly. At the current rate of rebuild it wont be at Bmsy till after 2020.

The current regime does not support people’s desire to leave fish in the water for conservation purposes. If people don’t catch fish now non-commercially it is allocated to the fishing industry. The people need a planning right, as per option4’s third principle, to conserve fish for future generations.

With management so focussed on economics it was difficult to understand how the purpose and environmental principles of the Fisheries Act were being met. The value of the Kahawai Legal Challenge is that it will force the Ministry to give consideration to aspects other than managing for purely economic outcomes, if the courts rule in the non-commercial fishers favour.

Active management by the Ministry is lacking. Rahui is one approach that recognises seasonal management and Maori envisage MFish’s approach to be very narrow.

Kim did not note any programmes where incentives or more catching rights had been offered to commercial fishers in exchange for ‘best practice’. This could include reducing fishing related mortality through improved fishing techniques or using more environmentally friendly fishing gear. The conference speakers were limited to a ten-minute presentation and a background paper. More information and background papers arre available online.

Jerry is the Zone One delegate to the New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council, based in Russel, Bay of Islands. He is a member of the BOI Swordfish Club. Jerry is American and has been in New Zealand since 1997. While based in California he represented the national coalition for marine conservation, in the Pacific region, for 25 years. This was his second Hokianga Accord hui and he appreciated the manner in which people participated and shared their experiences.

Jerry was active in banning gill nets off the Californian coast. This was achieved through challenging fisheries management practices and political pressure. Their group was successful in achieving a complete gill net ban in some areas and severely limiting use in other areas. Jerry explained the influence of having wealthy people supporting a cause should not be underestimated. As does one-off publicity stunts.

His experience of licensing in the States was that 80% of the license revenue goes to fund research of mainly commercial species. It was a limited licensing system where extra payment was required to fish each different species.

At the last Hokianga Accord hui it was agreed that a charitable trust would be established to receive funds to support conservation interests to enhance our fisheries and the marine environment. The Guardians of the Sea Trust Charitable Trust would be an entity entirely separate from the Hokianga Accord Iwi Regional Forum, but could support the work of the Forum, as well as other entities with similar objectives.

A draft trust deed had been completed and submitted to the Inland Revenue Department for approval for exemption from income tax on donations received. It is hoped to have the trust deed signed and the charitable trust incorporated before the next hui.

Hui Report

Page Seven