|
Kahawai Final Advice Paper
Ministry
of Fisheries
29
June 2004
Other Management Measures
Method restrictions
MFish initial
position
- The IPP noted that there is currently no provision for considering
spatial allocation within the process for setting sustainability
measures and continued voluntary arrangements between sectors
to retain existing spatial arrangements will be required when
kahawai are managed within the QMS.
Submissions
- The RFC submits that a review of area restrictions is overdue
and they submit many of the areas currently subject to voluntary
closure are too small. Further the RFC submits that the Hauraki
Gulf should be closed to purse seining by regulation.
- Wayne Taylor (on behalf of Ngäti Kahungunu, Ngäti
Pahauwera and Moeangiangi 42 N owners) notes that there is currently
a non-commercial area situated between the Waihua and Moeangiangi
Rivers (Hawke Bay) set aside as a breeding ground for many species
of fish. He submits support for extending this area to the twelve-mile
limit to confer additional protection for all fish species but
in particular for kahawai.
- The Kaikoura Boating Club submits that the plateau areas on
either side of the Kaikoura Peninsular leave the schooling kahawai
vulnerable to purse seining. It supports making the current voluntary
agreement pertaining to the area more permanent.
MFish response
- The IPP noted that a number of time and area constraints on
purse seining are in place as voluntary arrangements. While there
is a need for a review of spatial management arrangements for
kahawai in the near future, MFish considers that spatial arrangements
are matters for stakeholders to address.
- Once kahawai is introduced into the QMS, commercial stakeholders
(quota owners) will be more readily identifiable and MFish anticipates
that the development of stakeholder management arrangements will
be facilitated. This will in turn improve the prospects of stakeholder
agreed resolution to any concerns regarding spatial conflict that
may occur in the fishery.
- In addition the dispute procedures of the Act are available
at any stage if recreational fishers consider that their fishing
interests are adversely affected by commercial fishing.
- The approved dispute procedure is intended to provide a process
for stakeholders to resolve disputes without recourse to regulation.
If a dispute remains unresolved the Minister of Fisheries can
be asked to resolve that dispute. An important element of the
dispute procedure is that if one party to the dispute decides
not to participate in the process the Minister of Fisheries can
still be asked to make a determination.
- With regard to the RFC submission that the closure of the Hauraki
Gulf to purse seining should be regulated, MFish notes that this
closure has operated effectively as a voluntary arrangement for
a number of years without recourse to regulation. The ability
to regulate such a measure other than for sustainability purposes
is limited unless it is the outcome of a dispute procedure. To
date no such procedure has been initiated for kahawai. A similar
situation applies for the other closure to commercial fishing
proposed in the submission of the Kaikoura Boating Club.
- With regard to the submission of Wayne Taylor that an extension
to the closure to commercial fishing would provide protection
for kahawai (and other species) in Hawke Bay, MFish notes that
the sustainability benefits of a spatial closure are not clear
given the pelagic and migratory habits of kahawai. MFish considers
that the key measure required ensuring the sustainability of kahawai
is the setting of TACs at an appropriate level.
Deemed
value and overfishing thresholds
MFish initial
position
- MFish proposed two options for setting deemed values for kahawai
(based on the 2002 port price). These were to base the annual
deemed value on either 75% (“all other fishstocks”)
or 200% (“high value single species fisheries fishstocks”)
of the port price for kahawai.
- In addition, MFish proposed in the IPP that differential deemed
values apply and did not propose to set any over fishing threshold
for kahawai.
Submissions
- TOKM and SeaFIC both submit that kahawai should be classed
as an “all other fishstocks” for deemed value purposes
and that the annual deemed value should be based on 75% of the
port price for kahawai. Further, TOKM sees no need for the application
of differential deemed values or overfishing threshold for kahawai.
- NIFCL strongly oppose the unilateral departure from the deemed
values policy framework to apply a factor of 200% of the port
price for deemed values. NIFCL submit that kahawai clearly fits
within the “all other fishstocks” category and 75%
of the port price should apply to this species.
- Non-Commercial Fishers submit that if the catch history of the
purse seine target fishery is removed then the deemed value could
be set at $0.32. Otherwise the deemed value must be set at $0.86.
MFish response
- MFish considers that deemed values for kahawai should be set
in a way that encourages fishers not to fish in excess of ACE
because it is a shared fishery of considerable importance to other
sectors and there are concerns with regard to the status of kahawai
stocks. However, MFish acknowledges that there is a balance in
setting deemed values to avoid encouraging discarding of catch
at sea. While the majority of kahawai commercial catch in key
stocks is taken as a single species target by purse seine, a component
of the fishery (the majority in some stocks) is taken as a bycatch.
MFish accepts that, in the short term, the best fit for kahawai
is within the definition of “all other fishstocks”
and that deemed values should be set at 75% of port price.
- The performance of the deemed value in meeting the objective
for the fishery will be subject to review. Further, in accordance
with the policy provisions, MFish considers that differential
deemed values should apply in order to limit the incentives for
individual fishers to continue fishing in excess of ACE.
- MFish notes that the proposal to set deemed values was based
on 2002 port prices. Port price information for 2003 is now available.
In accordance with the use of best available information MFish
proposes deemed values be based on the 2003 price. This has the
effect of increasing the deemed values proposed in the IPP for
any given option.
Consequential amendment to regulation
MFish initial position
- The IPP proposed to amend the fishing permits of some permit
holders to remove the schedule imposing purse seine catch limits
for FMAs 1 and 9 combined, FMA 2 and FMAs 3-8.
Submissions
- Industry submissions support the proposal.
MFish
response
- MFish confirms its proposal to revoke permit conditions as
an unnecessary constraint on harvesting.
Legal
Obligations
-
The statutory considerations that must be taken
into account when setting a TAC and allowances for kahawai were
identified in the IPP (refer to paragraph 65 (a-m)). No additional
information has come to hand regarding these considerations.
MFish confirms that its position on legal obligations remains
as stated in the IPP.
|
