|
The
Minister's Final Decision
Tarakihi
1 (TAR 1 - Auckland (West and East))
In my
letter of 9 July I expressed a preliminary view supporting
the proposed TAC, allowances, and TACC for TAR 1 as outlined
in the AMP proposal from the Northern Inshore Fisheries Company
Limited. However, given the multi-sector nature of the fishery,
I noted in my preliminary view that the recreational and customary
sectors had not provided comment on the proposal at that time,
and I would be interested in arrangements to spread increased
catch so as to avoid localised depletion. I noted that the
proposal provided no detail to support the proponent's intention
to implement such arrangements.
Submissions
from recreational fishing interests confirmed the importance
of the fishery to them, and their concerns that the proposal
could affect recreational and customary interests in the fishery,
both in the Bay of Plenty and east Northland regions.
The AMP
framework is designed to allow for 'trial' fishing within
an administrative system, to derive information from fishing
subject to careful monitoring. In shared fisheries like TAR
1, I am inclined to be cautious, because those who gain no
benefit from the increased TACC in the short term, also carry
the risks attendant on the increased fishing. It is also more
difficult to cater for the different harvesting strategies
of the sectors in the uncertain circumstances of such 'trial'
fishing.
The concern
that I have regarding the proposal for TAR 1 is that the requested
TACC increase is substantial, representing a 43% increase
above current commercial catch. There is therefore the prospect
of significantly increased catch impacting on the interests
of the non-commercial sector.
In particular,
there is insufficient information available at this time to
adequately assess the probability or degree of any effect
of the AMP proposal on recreational catch. That uncertainty
is compounded without details of how appropriate catch spreading
will be ensured to avoid the risk of localised depletion and
effects on other sectors' interests. Without verifiable catch
spreading arrangements, the increase to the TACC (some 600
tonnes) could be taken within one or more confined areas.
I note
that the proponent, the Northern Inshore Fisheries Company
Ltd, has offered further discussion after viewing the MFish
final advice paper. I consider that to be impractical at this
late stage in the decision-making process, but view such an
offer as auguring well for the future. But at this time, having
considered the proposal, the views of submitters, and the
advice of MFish, my decision is to decline the proposal by
the Northern Inshore Fisheries Company Limited to increase
the TACC for TAR 1 to 1997 tonnes under the AMP.
With further
discussion and the development of appropriate arrangements
to address the possibility of affecting non-commercial interests
in TAR 1, an AMP proposal holds promise as a means of cost-effectively
deriving useful information from the fishery in the future.
I hope that the different interest groups are able to work
together to develop acceptable arrangements.
Section
13(10) of the Act requires that I set a TAC for a stock if
I propose to set or vary a TACC for a stock for which an initial
TAC was not set. Consequently, I have decided to set a TAC
of 1,773 tonnes for TAR 1. Within that TAC, I have decided
to make allowances of 45 tonnes for Maori customary non-commercial
catch, 310 tonnes for recreational catch, 20 tonnes for all
other mortality to the stock caused by fishing, and to retain
the TACC for TAR 1 at 1,398 tonnes.
|
