Kahawai FAP TAC

Kahawai Final Advice Paper - TAC

Ministry of Fisheries

29 June 2004

23. MFish proposed that s 13 management arrangements were appropriate for kahawai. Under s 13 there is a requirement to maintain a fishstock at a target stock level being at, or above, a biomass level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY), having regard to the interdependence of stocks.

24. In general, submitters support the use of the s 13 management arrangements for kahawai stocks.
25. However, the submission on behalf of Non-Commercial Fishers’ considers that the IPP contained no discussion on what kahawai management should aim to achieve. It notes that the goal of the MFish Strategic Plan 2003 – 2008 is: “Maximise the value New Zealanders obtain through the sustainable use of fisheries resources and protection of the aquatic environment”. It submits that the objective should be to maximise the benefits of this fishery for all New Zealanders. Non-Commercial Fishers also say that MFish must address the 1989 recreational fishing policy objectives in the final advice.
26. Further, the submission notes that the IPP claims an overall objective to ensure sustainable management of kahawai. It notes that the Plenary Report infers an acceptable sustainable kahawai stock of about 20% of virgin biomass. Non-Commercial Fishers submit that while this stock size may meet the criteria for maximising commercial harvest it is totally unacceptable to the submitters who require greater consideration of the social, economic, cultural and ecological implications of a kahawai stock reduced to being no more abundant than one fifth of its virgin biomass.
27. The submission notes the lack of harvest strategy for kahawai. It notes the adoption of a harvest strategy above BMSY for kingfish and notes that this particular harvest strategy was not widely discussed or agreed to. It submits that the same mistakes are being made for kahawai as management decisions are being taken in the absence of agreed objectives.
28. The RFC submits that the kahawai fishery should be managed at a biomass greater than BMSY.
29. BOPCB and many other recreational submissions submit their concerns relating to the fishing down of kahawai stocks. The BOPCB submits that experience available within the board suggests that kahawai biomass has reduced down to 25% of the stock size in 1962.
30. Sanford notes that there is information suggesting biomass in the mid-1990s was around 50% of virgin biomass (B0), indicating a healthy kahawai resource at that time. It submits that reducing commercial landings since 1996 has probably led to an increase in biomass since that time.

31. The management arrangements proposed for kahawai under s 13 of the Act provide for maintaining the biomass of a fishstock at a target stock level, being at, or above, a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), having regard to the interdependence of stocks. MSY is defined, in relation to any fishstock, as being the greatest yield that can be achieved over time while maintaining the stock’s productive capacity, having regard to the population dynamics of the stock and any environmental factors that influence the stock. A requirement to maintain stocks at or above BMSY is generally recognised internationally as being an appropriate fishstock target although there is some international support for BMSY representing a minimum fishstock threshold level.
32. The IPP proposals were based on the assumption that kahawai stocks are currently at or above BMSY.
33. MFish notes that you have discretion under the Act to manage (and set a specific target level for) a stock at or above BMSY (s 13(2)(a)). If a stock is currently below the target stock level, there is a requirement pursuant to s 13(2)(b) to set a TAC that will result in the stock being restored to the target stock level (that is, at or above a BMSY) in a way and at a rate which has regard to the interdependence of stocks and within a period appropriate to the stock, having regard to the stock’s biological characteristics and any environmental conditions affecting the stock.
34. If the stock is above the target stock level, there is a requirement to set a TAC that will result in the stock moving towards the target stock level, or alternatively remain above the target stock level, having regard to the interdependence of stocks (s 13(2)(c)). In considering the way in which, and rate at which, a stock is altered to achieve the target stock level, the Minister is to have regard to such social, cultural, and economic factors as he or she considers relevant (s 13(3)). Section 13(3) makes it explicit that such factors are relevant in the determination of the way and rate of progress to the target level, rather than in the determination of the target stock level itself.
35. There is no set rate, or time frame, within which a rebuild or a “fishing down” of a stock must be achieved. However, the progress of moving towards the target stock level must be suitable to the fishery in question, having also considered those matters specified in s 13 of the Act.
36. MFish notes that rebuilding or maintaining an important recreational fishery at levels above BMSY will theoretically provide benefits to recreational fishers in terms of increased abundance of the stock and hence increased availability to recreational fishers. Further a greater range of size classes will be available in the fishery improving the opportunities for recreational fishers to catch larger fish. MFish assumes that these benefits would also apply to customary fishers.
37. The benefits to the commercial sector from management above BMSY are less apparent. There is some reduction in available yield at higher levels of biomass but the commercial fishery could also benefit from improved availability of the stock(s) and the associated lower costs of harvesting in target fisheries. There are, however, costs associated with any reduction in catches that may be required to achieve a higher level of biomass.
38. MFish notes that environmental considerations also indicate that maintaining a higher biomass level for kahawai may also be desirable. However, in the case of kahawai there is no recent information on biomass nor is there sufficient information to identify a specific proposed stock level. In this case MFish is not able to provide quantitative estimates for any stock and management above BMSY becomes a largely theoretical exercise. In the absence of this information MFish considers that a target level for kahawai stocks is not a crucial issue to determine at this time. Rather, you should consider the socio-economic benefits at various stock sizes in relation to the TAC options proposed for consideration.

39. MFish proposed that TACs be based on estimates of current utilisation. Although available and relevant, the 1996 stock assessment information for kahawai was considered to be uncertain and dated.
40. TACs for kahawai stocks proposed in the IPP are shown in Table 2. It was noted in the IPP that the total of all TACs combined was at about the same level as a conservative (base case) estimate of sustainable yield reported in the Stock Assessment Plenary Report.

Submissions

41. Submissions have raised issues about the information that should be used for the purposes of establishing TACs for kahawai.
42. These issues are addressed in the following sections;

1. Use of the 1996 stock assessment;
2. Other sources of information;
3. Trends in utilisation;
4. Estimates of commercial landings;
5. Estimates of recreational landings; and
6. Estimates of customary landings.