Kahawai FAP

Kahawai Final Advice Paper

Ministry of Fisheries

29 June 2004

Allocation principles

Stakeholder submissions

193. Industry submissions strongly oppose anything other than a claims based approach to setting allowances and TACCs. Submissions from commercial fishers and their representative organisations may be summarised as follows:

1. Information on utility was highly uncertain and techniques used to estimate utility flawed;
2. Use of utility had the potential to undermine the QMS and the integrity of ITQ; and
3. A claims or catch history based allocation framework provides more certainty.

194. TOKM supports the principle of catch history for allocating catch between sectors and considers that use of utility without compensation could be considered bad faith because it would undermine treaty settlement assets.
195. The Bay of Island Charter Fishing Association and Tony Orman supports managing kahawai as a tourist-recreational fish. Tony Orman submits that kahawai is potentially an economic resource of far greater magnitude than the earnings from purse seining, if designated as a recreation and sports fish. His submission notes that Sanford employ 100 people associated with purse seining but submits that one fishing lodge could generate an equivalent number of jobs with just twelve rooms (using what he states as the accepted factor of eight jobs per tourist bed per night).
196. Other recreational submissions generally refer to the fact that kahawai is highly valued by that sector citing either social or economic values associated with the fishery that they believe outweigh those of the commercial sector.

MFish response

197. MFish notes that your discretion in regard to factors you can take into account when determining allocations is wide. These factors are outlined in the generic section of the IPP. The utility concept is one of these relevant factors.
198. Most recreational submissions strongly favour preferential access for the recreational sector on the basis that kahawai is more highly valued by them. Much is made in submission of the fact that kahawai caught commercially has a low value. Recreational groups favour a qualitative assessment of utility based on giving a preference to recreational fishers in a fishery that is obviously “more valuable” to them.
199. MFish considers that there is subjectivity attached to both consideration of catch history and utility. As evidenced by the discussion on catch history in the earlier sections of this paper, catch history is contentious. MFish considers that much of the critique of the utility model and estimates provided in the IPP can be addressed, however MFish confirms its view (acknowledged in the IPP) that there is a great deal of uncertainty attached to quantitative assessments of value.
200. MFish considers that catch history information is a more certain basis for allocation than utility and has a policy preference for its use. Utility information for kahawai is uncertain. You should weight this uncertainty if you consider the use of utility information as a basis for allocations for kahawai.
     

Mäori customary allowance

MFish initial position

201. The IPP proposed that in the absence of quantitative information a customary allowance be set at 50% of the current level of recreational utilisation.

Stakeholder submissions

202. Sanford submits that the Maori customary allowance proposed in the IPP is excessive. Other aspects of its submission on the Maori customary allowance are addressed in the preceding section on Maori customary utilisation.
203. Non Commercial Fishers submit that a component of customary fishing is contained in recreational harvest estimates but that customary allowances should be based on 50% of the recreational harvest estimates to ensure that Maori have a priority access to kaimoana.
204. Harry Toi (on behalf of Ngati Hapu, Ngati Kopaki, Ngati Kopaki, Ngati te Ara, the Ngati Kopaki, Ngati TeAra Trust) submits that the allocation process is not conducive to the sustainability of the resource for tangata whenua. He submits support of the need for assessing impacts of the social and economic situation of tangata whenua before allocating quota.
205. Wayne Taylor (on behalf of Ngäti Kahungunu, Ngäti Pahauwera and Moeangiangi 42 N owners) submits that kahawai has special spiritual, cultural and historical significance for them. Wayne Taylor notes that one of sub tribes of Ngäti Pahauwera was known as the Kahawai tribe and derived a particular spiritual connection to kahawai.
206. Te Runanga o Otakou notes that the Minister is required to develop policies to help recognise the use and management practices of takatä whenua in the exercise of customary non-commercial fishing rights. Te Rünanga o Ötäkou requests that a minimum of 25% of the TAC be provided as a non-commercial allowance, of which 80% should be provided as a customary allowance.
207. John Horan submits that his whanau have coastal land of Maori heritage. He has supplied the elderly and his family for almost 20 years and he states that they rely on kahawai. He wants to continue supplying the needs of his extended family but submits that there has been a decline in kahawai at Whatuwhiwhi over the years that he attributes to commercial fishing.

MFish discussion

208. MFish proposes to base Maori customary allowances on revised estimates of current utilisation (refer previous section on customary Maori catch and Table 6).
209. It is important to note that this is intended as an estimate of customary use over and above any customary Maori fishing that may be included in recreational harvest estimates. MFish acknowledges that there is no quantitative information to support this estimate and you will need to take this into account when determining allowances for customary Maori fishing within the TACs proposed. The level of customary harvest becomes important if you decide to set TACs that reduce existing use in the fishery.
210. MFish notes the submission of Wayne Taylor supporting the fact that kahawai is a species of particular significance to customary Maori fishers and of John Horan articulating the reliance his whänau place on kahawai. As a matter of policy MFish recommends that customary use/allowances are not constrained or reduced in the circumstance of reduced TACs and the burden of reduction on commercial and recreational fishers is therefore proportionally higher.
211. MFish notes the generic view of Te Rünanga o Ötäkou for the provision of allowances, but concludes that a standard approach to setting allowances in the manner suggested is not appropriate for kahawai. Rather a case-by-case approach is indicated. This submission is addressed in further detail in the generic section of this advice.
     
     

TOP

Recreational allowance

MFish initial position

212. The recreational allowances (in tonnes) proposed in the IPP for each QMA are set out in Table 7 below. The average of the two most recent estimates of recreational landing was proposed as the basis for setting the recreational allowance.
     

Stakeholder submissions

213. The RFC submits that no recreational allowances should be set until better information becomes available.
214. Non-Commercial Fishers propose that the allowances should be based on the results of the most recent survey. Submissions state that an error in the 1996 recreational harvest survey allowed for many refusals in the survey to be counted as non-fishing households. Accordingly, it submits that incorrect harvest estimates must not be used as a basis for how much kahawai is allowed for by recreational fishers.
215. Non-Commercial Fishers submits that as a source of food, learning or sport, kahawai are highly valued by recreational fishers. It submits that the fishing experience for kahawai provides a thrill for anglers of all ages.
216. Sanford also opposes the MFish proposed allowances. Sanford submits that the 1996 survey alone should be used to determine an allowance as the most recent survey has yet to receive full review and acceptance.
217. SeaFIC and TOKM strongly oppose the setting of recreational allowances on the basis of a transfer of value away from the commercial sector.
     

MFish discussion

218. MFish notes that the statutory basis for determining allowances within a TAC is clear. You do not need to provide for the needs of the recreational sector (or any other sector group) in full. You will need to make an assessment as to the competing needs of the sector groups for a limited resource.
219. There is no constraint (within the scope of the Act) on the basis upon which you can decide to allocate the TAC or on the quantum you elect to allocate to each sector. As noted previously, it is important for you to have regard to the relevant social, economic and cultural implications when making your decision. MFish considers that landings history information is a more certain basis for allocation than utility. Utility information for kahawai is uncertain. You should weigh this uncertainty when considering the use of utility information as a basis for allocations for kahawai.
220. There are competing demands for the use of kahawai. Recreational fishers constitute the largest fishing sector and account for about 60% of all kahawai currently caught. Kahawai is one of the few species that has this characteristic. It is highly sought after by recreational fishers. The saltwater flyfishing industry and some charter operations also have a significant interest in the species. Recreational fishers express a preference for increased abundance and greater ability to catch large sized fish.
221. MFish considers it is appropriate that due recognition be given to the importance of the stock to recreational fishers. However, it is problematic to ascertain what the precise needs of recreational fishers are. Recreational landings of 4 025 tonnes per annum are not satisfying current recreational needs as measured by perception surveys. While recognising the recreational importance of kahawai, MFish does not support fully allocating the fishery to recreational fishers or endeavouring to provide for the needs of recreational fishers in full.
222. The recreational solution is to remove the purse seine target fishery. There would be substantial economic consequences associated with removing the target component of commercial landings and no legal mechanism for effecting it. MFish considers that the critical decision is the level of TACC you decide after allowing for non-commercial use. MFish considers that industry should be free to operate within that TACC as they see fit (regarding the choice of fishing method).
223. MFish recommends that the recreational allowance be based on either the MFish estimate of current recreational utilisation or a 15% reduction of current utilisation depending on which TAC option you elect.
     
     
     

Management of recreational landings

MFish initial position

224. MFish did not propose introducing any change to management arrangements for recreational kahawai fishing on the basis that the allowance proposed was based on existing use.

Stakeholder submissions

225. TNIFCL notes trends in population growth and submits that recreational effort should be constrained through reductions in the daily bag limit and setting of a minimum legal size for kahawai.
226. The Bay of Plenty Conservation Board recommends a halving of the daily recreational allowance of twenty kahawai per person.
227. The RFC supports the recreational sector assisting with a rebuild of kahawai stocks but only if this was made possible by controls on commercial landings.

MFish discussion

228. There is no minimum legal size limit for kahawai taken recreationally and recreational bag limits for kahawai are based on a mixed bag of species with a limit of 20 per person (an exception is the Southern Fishery Management Areas in which an individual daily limit of 15 applies). Within the mixed bag limit, if kahawai is the only species taken, then up to 20 may be taken per person per day.
229. Management options are available to constrain recreational kahawai catches. These include the imposition of a minimum legal size (effective for some species) or the setting of a separate and reduced daily bag limit for kahawai. The MFish preference is to consider a reduction in the daily bag limit. MFish has yet to analyse recreational survey information to determine what an appropriate bag limit should be to achieve the desired level of reduction.
230. If you agree to set an allowance for recreational fishing less than the current level of use, MFish will provide you with further advise on how this might be achieved following consultation with recreational fishing interests. This is not a decision that needs to take effect at the commencement of the fishing year on 1 October 2004.