Kahawai FAP

Kahawai Final Advice Paper

Ministry of Fisheries

29 June 2004

MFish preferred TAC options

152. The MFish preferred TAC options are to either base combined TACs on current utilisation or an arbitrary 15% reduction in recreational and commercial use of key kahawai stocks (KAH 1, KAH 2; KAH 3 and KAH 8). MFish does not accept the Sanford view that basing TACs on current utilisation is ultra-viries the Act. Nor does MFish agree with the views of some recreational fishers that preferential reductions favouring recreational use should be used as a basis for TAC setting. MFish considers that in the current position of uncertainty it is not appropriate to place undue weight on any one indicator of stock size or abundance. If you consider that current utilisation is at levels that presents a risk to the sustainability of the stock then in these circumstances a reduction in utilisation is indicated.
153. MFish considers an alternative option to TACs based on current utilisation is to base them on a proportional reduction in utilisation. A reduction of 15% is significant but it is proposed as a balance between certainty and impact. The following sections on TACs for each stock and subsequent allowances also contains tables of allowances and TACCs for alternative TAC options proposed by stakeholders for your consideration

Option 1 (Current Utilisation)
KAH 1

154. A TAC of 4 235 tonnes is proposed (increased from the 3 910 tonnes proposed in the IPP). This is based on estimates of current commercial, customary and recreational utilisation and an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality.

KAH 2

155. A TAC of 1 970 tonnes is proposed (increased from the 1 510 tonnes proposed in the IPP). This is based on estimates of current commercial, customary and recreational utilisation and an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality

KAH 3

156. A TAC of 1 190 tonnes is proposed (increased from the 960 tonnes proposed in the IPP). This is based on estimates of current commercial, customary and recreational utilisation and an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality

KAH 4

157. A TAC of 16 tonnes is proposed for this stock, which is slightly reduced from the 18 tonnes proposed in the IPP. This is because of an estimate of customary utilisation that has been revised from the IPP.

KAH 8

158. A TAC of 1 330 tonnes is proposed (slightly reduced from the 1 210 tonnes proposed in the IPP). This is based on estimates of current commercial, customary and recreational utilisation and an allowance for other sources of fishing related mortality.

KAH 10

159. A TAC of 16 tonnes is proposed for this stock, which is reduced from the 18 tonnes proposed in the IPP. This is because of an estimate of customary utilisation that has been revised from the IPP.
     

Option 2 (Proportional reduction)
KAH 1

160. A TAC of 3 685 tonnes is proposed (reduced from the 3 910 tonnes proposed in the IPP). This is based on a 15% reduction in current commercial and recreational utilisation. .

KAH 2

161. A TAC of 1 705 tonnes is proposed (increased from the 1 510 tonnes proposed in the IPP). This is based on a 15% reduction in current commercial and recreational utilisation.

KAH 3

162. A TAC of 1 035 tonnes is proposed (slightly increased from the 960 tonnes proposed in the IPP). This is based on a 15% reduction in current commercial and recreational utilisation.

KAH 4

163. A TAC of 16 tonnes is proposed for this stock, which is reduced from the 18 tonnes proposed in the IPP.

KAH 8

164. A TAC of 1 155 tonnes is proposed (reduced from the 1 210 tonnes proposed in the IPP). This is based on a 15% reduction in current commercial and recreational utilisation.

KAH 10

165. A TAC of 16 tonnes is proposed for this stock, which is reduced from the 18 tonnes proposed in the IPP.
     

TOP

Impact of reduced TACs

166. If you accept the need for a reduction in the current level of utilisation to achieve levels of kahawai stocks that are sustainable in the long term you are required to have regard to such social, cultural and economic factors as you consider relevant when deciding on the rate at which stocks should rebuild. The interests of future generations are also an important consideration.
167. Submissions document how reduced TACs will impact on submitter’s respective interests. Notwithstanding these impacts, there is common ground between non-commercial and some commercial sectors in their acceptance of the target levels used as a basis for managing kahawai. Both submitted support for setting TACs on the basis of MCY estimates.
168. There are socio-economic impacts of TAC options. The degree of impact in particular will depend on the allocation option you choose. Detailed consideration of economic impact is outlined in the sections on allocation.
169. MFish has assumed that the interests of customary Maori fishers are best served by an improvement in the availability of kahawai. MFish has proposed no reduction in allowance for customary Mäori fishing under the proportional reduction option (reductions are proposed only for the recreational and commercial sectors) and considers that the benefits, or otherwise, to customary fishers of the TAC option proposed will be an improved ability to take kahawai within their allowance.
170. MFish concludes that the ability of Mäori customary fishers to harvest kahawai within their customary allowance for the stock will be improved by reducing the landings of the other fishing sectors.
171. MFish assumes that the interests and aspirations of future generations of recreational fishers will be similar to those expressed by current fishers. That is access to stocks of kahawai where catches are reasonably available and fish are of good (in a recreational context) size. Recreational dissatisfaction with the current position is clearly apparent and MFish concludes that recreational perceptions will be improved with reduced levels of landings.
172. In a more general sense the maintenance of stocks at or above a level that will support BMSY is likely to meet the needs of future generations.
173. There will be an impact on recreational landings of reduced TACs. Effective constraint will be required to achieve a reduction in recreational landings. Some submissions support the need for a reduced bag limit or imposition of an MLS (although this might pose problems for fishers wishing to use undersize kahawai for bait). MFish does not know if recreational fishers are prepared to accept this impact in the knowledge that benefits will accrue to them from a greater stock size.
174. Commercial fishers perceive no such benefits to offset the impacts of lower commercial landings of kahawai. Clearly there are benefits to industry from constraints on the total removals of kahawai. Submissions have articulated the value of kahawai to the commercial sector as a bycatch and target fishery. Sanford has also indicated that it supports maintaining kahawai biomass above the BMSY. Without management action this value could be potentially dissipated if stocks decline. At issue is whether longer term benefits can accrue to industry from stocks at greater levels of biomass leading to a greater availability of kahawai and who contributes to this rebuild.
175. Commercial impacts can be measured as direct opportunity costs. A tonne of kahawai has a value and any reduction in tonnage for the commercial sector as a result of a lower TAC is an opportunity cost. This is particularly the case for target fisheries or where a component of the fishery is based on targeting. For bycatch fisheries additional impacts occur when catches are constrained to such a level that ACE is not available to cover the inevitable bycatch associated with other target fisheries. Impacts include the punitive measures associated with the balancing regime or the potential that bycatch constrains target fisheries and limits the landings of these fisheries. MFish is not aware of any current situations where target catches are constrained by the level of bycatch TACs. Typically landings are taken in excess of the bycatch TAC if this is required and deemed values are paid. There is also the risk that catch in excess of ACE will be discarded at sea.
176. Ensuring that quota and/or ACE flows to where it is most required in the fishery on entry to the QMS will be a test for the economic incentives provided in the QMS. At the levels of TAC proposed, the majority of quota will be required to cover unavoidable bycatch in some stocks (eg KAH 8). At the outset MFish relies on the economic incentives and disincentives of the QMS to ensure that landings remain within the TAC (and TACC). Again this is a consideration of both the TAC and allowances that you decide to set.
177. You will need to consider the balance of costs and benefits in your decision as to what TACs to set. Of necessity MFish has assumed the status quo distribution of landings when considering a more detailed assessment of possible economic impacts. MFish has considered the socio-economic impacts associated with TACC options later in this paper. The detail of impacts on each sector will vary for each stock. MFish notes that reduced TACs are proposed only for the main areas of fishing (KAH 1, KAH 2, KAH 3 and KAH 8).