Kahawai FAP

Kahawai Final Advice Paper

Ministry of Fisheries

29 June 2004

Conclusion

In introducing kahawai into the QMS, you have decisions to make about:

The target stock level size (at or above BMSY);
The level of the TACs and allocations to the fishing sectors; and
Other associated management measures.

The IPP outlined legislative obligations in relation to these matters and suggested preferred options. MFish has received numerous submissions on the IPP proposals and these have been evaluated as part of this advice paper and full submissions are provided under separate cover (summaries only of e-mail submissions).
Kahawai is an important recreational species able to be fished from shore and by boat. The management proposals for this fishery have attracted significant opposition from the recreational sector. Recreational fishers have strongly expressed concerns over what they perceive is a marked decline in the amount and size of kahawai available to them in recent years and attribute this decline to commercial fishing and purse seining for kahawai in particular.
Industry place reliance on kahawai as both a target and bycatch species. Industry also opposes the MFish initial proposals and says that TACs and their share of those should be higher. Industry says that there has been an historical decline in biomass associated with fishing the kahawai stock down towards target biomass levels but in recent years the fishery has been only lightly exploited. Industry suggests that there is a lack of scientific information to support any suggestion of a recent decline in stock size.
The information available in support of decisions on TACs, allowances and TACCs is uncertain. Estimates of current use for some sectors are uncertain, there is a stock assessment for kahawai but it is dated (1996) and inputs into the assessment are increasingly regarded as being unreliable. The stock assessment indicated that by 1996 the biomass of kahawai had declined to around 50% of its original level. Information on recent trends in stock abundance is limited but does not indicate a continued decline in stock size. This needs to be considered in contrast to the recreational (and some customary) submissions that suggest that the stocks have declined below acceptable levels.
Both the recreational sector and some parts of industry support managing kahawai at a level of biomass above BMSY. MFish does not regard the setting of a specific target level above BMSY to be a critical issue that you need to determine at this time when setting TACs for kahawai stocks. MFish has concluded that rather than determining a specific stock size as a target level (given the lack of information about current biomass and the change in catch levels necessary to achieve any particular target level) you should consider the socio-economic benefits at various stock sizes in relation to the TAC options proposed for your consideration.
For the purposes of setting TACs two approaches are available:

Using estimates of yield from the 1996 stock assessment model; and
Using estimates of current use of the fishery (or a proportion of that use).

The 1996 stock assessment provides estimates of yield ranging between 5 100-14 200 tonnes. MFish proposed that estimates based on a single natural morality estimate were the best available resulting in yield estimates of 7 600 and 8 200 tonnes. Some commercial and recreational submissions support you basing your TAC decisions on these yield estimates but differ on the level of yield that should be chosen. Although relevant as a reference point for TAC setting, MFish considers that the stock assessment information is too uncertain and dated for using as a basis for setting TACs.
The alternative is to base TACs directly on current utilisation of the fishery. This method has the advantage of reflecting public policy considerations already made for the fishery and current reliance on the fishery by each sector. These considerations are reflected in the current management arrangements for the fishery and current catch.
MFish considers that recreational utilisation is now greater than portrayed in the IPP. Technical experts have recently reviewed the three most recent recreational harvest surveys and advise that the 1996 estimates (used in an average of recreational catch in the IPP) should not be used. Despite a cautionary note from technical experts MFish now considers that the most recent surveys provide the best available information on recreational catch and have used these as a basis for estimating current recreational use of kahawai. You should note that, while uncertain, estimates are now substantially higher and this has had consequences for the assessment of whether current kahawai catch is sustainable.
Kahawai supports important Mäori customary fisheries but the size of the catch is unknown and can only be estimated by assuming a proportion of the recreational catch. MFish has adjusted estimates of customary Maori use from 50% of recreational use estimates to 25% having considered submissions and following revisions of the recreational estimates of use.
Commercial catches declined after peaking at 9 600 tonnes in 1987-88, reducing to 2 900 tonnes in 2002-03. The majority of recent commercial landings of kahawai is still taken by purse seining, however about 45% of the catch is now taken as a by catch of other fisheries. MFish has revised estimates of current commercial use to address errors in the IPP identified in submission but has not accepted submissions that more historical landings, or the use of CCLs, should be incorporated into the assessment of current commercial use. Rather, MFish confirms its view that the average of the most recent five fishing years should form the basis of the estimates of current commercial use. You should note that this has implications for the distribution of TACCs between kahawai stocks in MFish proposals.
Current estimates of recreational catch exceed that of the commercial sector and when combined with estimates of customary Maori catch the non-commercial fishery is well in excess of the size of the current commercial fishery. You should note that there is uncertainty in all estimates of current use. This uncertainty is particularly relevant because current levels of combined use lead MFish to conclude that current catch of kahawai may not be sustainable.
A nationwide combined estimate of recreational catch, customary catch, fishing related mortality and reported commercial landings of 8 767 tonnes exceeds yield estimates based on the 1996 stock assessment (7 600 and 8 200 tonnes). While these estimates are outdated and uncertain they remain the only reference points of sustainable yield for kahawai. There is a risk that current utilisation of kahawai stocks may not be sustainable and there are also widespread perceptions (see the discussion on recreational perception surveys in Appendix 1) from the recreational fishing sector that a rebuild of kahawai stocks is required.
Having regard to available information which, although uncertain, suggests there is a risk associated with current levels of catch of 8 767 tonnes in terms of:

a 1996 stock assessment with best available estimates of MCY of 7 600 tonnes and 8 200 tonnes;
1996 information on status of stock relative to BMSY (50%);
considerable uncertainty in the estimates of yield and stock status for kahawai;
some agreement by sectors for a target stock level above BMSY;
a commercial view that there is no evidence of declining recreational catches, numbers of schools of kahawai or changes in the level of bycatch in recent years;
a strong recreational perception about declining abundance, availability and size of fish in the main stocks both long term and in recent years;
a revised estimate of MCY submitted by Non-Commercial Fishers (6 900 tonnes) as a basis for combined TACs; and
the important role of kahawai in the ecosystem.

The MFish preferred TAC options are to either base combined TACs on current utilisation or on an arbitrary 15% reduction in recreational and commercial use of key kahawai stocks (KAH 1, KAH 2; KAH 3 and KAH 8). If you consider that current utilisation is at levels that present a risk to the stock you might consider that in these circumstances a reduction is indicated. A level of reduction of 15% of current utilisation is recommended. Such a level is significant but it is proposed as a balance between certainty and impact. Should you consider that an alternative combined TAC should be considered then TAC options proposed by stakeholders are available for your consideration.
MFish notes that the TAC option based on a reduction of current utilisation will have socio-economic impacts on commercial fishers. For example, Sanford emphasise the importance of kahawai to their purse seine operations. Management intervention will also be required to constrain recreational catch if you elect the lower of the TAC options proposed. These impacts should be considered along with weighting of the uncertain information on stock status when making your decision and you should take into account the fact that, while a new stock assessment of kahawai is planned, results will not be available for consideration until the 2006-07 year.
The IPP and this FAP contain discussion on the use of alternative options when considering how to allow for non-commercial use– the “claims based” and “utility” approaches. The policy discussion on utility and claims based approaches is not intended to fetter your discretion, but rather provides policy guidance in order to provide a more robust framework when considering allowances.
The utility model is strongly opposed by industry and TOKM on the basis that this approach has the potential to undermine the QMS, the integrity of ITQ, and in the case of TOKM the 1992 Deed of Settlement. The basis of much of the non-commercial opposition to commercial fishing for kahawai (and purse seining in particular) is based on the perception that they value the fishery more highly than commercial fishers.
MFish considers that there is subjectivity attached to consideration of both catch history and utility options. The period chosen for commercial catch history and estimates of non-commercial catch are contentious. MFish considers that much of the critique of the utility concept 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. You should weight this uncertainty if you consider the use of utility information as a basis for determining allocations for kahawai.
There are competing demands for kahawai in excess of the proposed allowances within TACs. You are not required to fully satisfy the demands of any sector group. In determining allocations you must consider competing demands for the resource and the socio-economic impacts of allocations proposed.

On balance, MFish considers that the allocations shown in Table 12 appropriately reflect competing demands, current use in the fishery, and the socio-economic effects of current versus reduced use. To a large extent the options for determining allowances and TACCs will be driven by the TAC option you consider reasonable. If you agree to set TACs based on a 15% reduction to average landings, MFish considers that catch history information is a more certain basis for considering allowances for non-commercial use and has a policy preference for this option. MFish support a proportional reduction to recreational allowances and TACCs for the fishery if the lower TAC option is chosen.
If you agree to set an allowance for recreational fishing less than the current level of use, MFish considers that consultation with the recreational sector will be required on the best way to achieve this. MFish’s initial view is by a reduction in daily bag limit however MFish will provide you with further advise on how this might be achieved following consultation with recreational fishing interests.
In respect of associated management measures MFish proposes that you set a deemed value for kahawai, agree that differential deemed values apply and note that existing permit conditions setting purse seine catch limits will be revoked.