| option4
Rebuttal of Kahawai Initial
Position
Paper 2004
Part
Three
When a
species is introduced into the Quota Management System (QMS) the
Ministry of Fisheries issues its suggested management proposals
to the Minister in an Initial Position Paper (IPP). The Minister
uses this information to base his final decision on when setting
the TACC and allowing for the public and customary Maori fishers.
option4 have major concerns
with much of the information provided in the IPP. Also of concern
is the Ministry's position in having presented the Minister with
only one option for the future management of this most important
species. We have spent time going through the document section by
section so you can understand our concerns.
The document has been
divided into manageable sections so you can quickly come to grips
with the issues option4 has identified as being of note.
KEY:
Black text is IPP
Blue text is option4 commentmment.
KAHAWAI
(KAH)
Part Three
Allocation
of TAC
- The Minister, when setting or varying
a TACC shall "allow for" non commercial fishers.
More »
- Ensuring sustainability means maintaining
the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable
needs of future generations. More »
- The Ministry claim there is no scarcity
within the fishery. Of course there is. More
»
Recreational
allowance
- These fisheries have been severely damaged.
More »
- There is only commercial and non commercial
fishers. More »
Maori customary
allowance
Allocation
of TAC
- The TAC constitutes a composite of the respective stakeholder
groups' catch allocations, plus any other fishing-related mortality.
When setting any TAC, a TACC must be set, as well as allowances
determined for the Maori customary and recreational fishing interests
and for any incidental fishing related incidental mortality.
This is wrong. The
TAC is the TAC. After allowing for non commercial fishers and
other fishing related mortality the Minister allocates the balance
to commercial fishers in the form of a TACC which in turn is divided
up amongst a small number of commercial fishers as a % share of
the TACC. One of the most persistent and malicious distortions
of the law is the ongoing clumsy attempts by the Ministry of Fisheries
to have us believe that we and customary Maori have an allocation
along the same lines as industry. This is simply not true and
we believe these statements are without substance legally. Remember,
the Minister, when setting or varying a TACC, shall allow
for non commercial fishers. Nowhere does the law state
that the Minister shall make an allowance/allocation for non commercial
fishers.
- The 1996 Act stipulates a process by which the TAC is to be
allocated. However, no explicit statutory mechanism provides guidance
as to the apportionment of the TAC between sector groups either
in terms of a quantitative measure or prioritisation of allocation.
In respect of making
an allowance for non-commercial interests, McGechan J held in
New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen (Inc) & Ors
v Minister of Fisheries & Ors (HC, Wellington CP237/95, 24/4/97)
that a TACC could be reduced to serve legitimate conservation
purposes or to advantage—deliberately or incidentally—non-commercial
fishing interests. His Honour held that: “It is not outside
or against the purposes of the Act to allow a preference to non-commercials
to the disadvantage in fact of commercials and their valued ITQ
rights, even to the extent of the industry’s worst case
of a decision designed solely to give recreationalists greater
satisfaction. Both are within the Act.” (page 89). That’s
why we have a Minister. The decisions he has to make are political
– that is the way of the world. If he wants to piss the
public off, that’s his and his Cabinet colleague’s
choice.
- There is information available for both
catch history (current utilisation) and for utility value.
In shared fisheries MFish has a policy preference in favour of
the catch history allocation model in the absence of clear information
to the contrary. While the utility based model is not discounted
altogether its application to kahawai is problematic as the information
is uncertain.
What is this “policy
preference” ? FA 1996 s8 states: (1)The purpose of this
Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while
ensuring sustainability.(2)In this Act—`Ensuring sustainability''
means—(a)Maintaining the potential of fisheries resources
to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;
and.. Almost as uncertain as the catch history information. Problematic
indeed – which cheap, discounted and ill prepared data set
to use? We would like to see what the information the Ministry
has about the utility based model and some discussion about their
uncertainty.
Allowing for population growth - Government policy is to increase
population by immigration. Government must take this into account
as per the staturory obligations. If the Minister fails to allow
for this population growth the Crown could face compensation issues
in the future.
- MFish notes that current levels of utilisation
for all sectors combined can be accommodated within the proposed
TACs. This suggests that currently there is no scarcity
within the fishery and therefore no clear-cut requirement
to consider reallocating the fishery between sector groups on
the basis of utility value or any other considerations.
It does not get much
more insulting than this. The public and customary Maori have
been very vocal for a very long time about the ridiculous overfishing
of kahawai by industry (for marginal returns). How dare they suggest
our current level of utilisation is adequate. It is this sort
of statement that truly destroys any credibility this Ministry
might claim to enjoy. We must not forget the immortal words of
the Ministry of Fisheries at the recent scampi inquiry “Ms
Duffy who appeared for the Ministry and the Chief Executive submitted
that the Ministry was not under a duty to act fairly in determining
fishers’ access to fisheries.” – this section
of their advice to their Minister takes the cake. Of course it
is time for the Minister to stand up to the industry and their
lap dogs at the Ministry. This fishery cannot be allowed to be
managed by these drongo's. To suggest that some smoke and mirrors
number games somehow or other adds up to and justifies making
statements like “currently there is no scarcity within the
fishery and therefore no clear-cut requirement to consider reallocating
the fishery between sector groups” defies imagination. Of
course there is scarcity – unless of course you
have a mandate to ignore virtually every member of the public
who fishes for food!!!!
Massive reallocation has already occurred as a very small number
of highly capitalised fishing companies unleashed unprecedented
technologies and industrial methodology (spotter planes combined
with purse seine vessels) on a localised, inshore shared fishery
of major importance to the public. The concern and outrage that
was incessantly expressed by all recreational fishing organisations,
some Ministry personnel and numerous individuals with a lifetime
of intimate knowledge and experience with kahawai WAS AND CONTINUES
TO BE completely ignored. We are outraged that this Ministry has
the audacity to claim that there is “no scarcity “
when catch rates have been demolished. Is it that they are referring
to the 2 corporates who have spotter planes and purse seiners
– it is certainly not the experience (knowledge) of the
average non commercial fisher. Are they in fact recommending
that we all get ourselves a spotter plane?
- Accordingly, the proposed allowances and TACCs have been calculated
using average commercial landings for the period between 1997
and 2002 as MFish considers this relatively stable period provides
the best available information on current levels of commercial
utilisation. It is also broadly consistent with the method for
evaluating the current non-commercial utilisation.
Untrue, not stable,
unless MFish have a different scale for measuring declines. From
1993/94 fishing year to 2001/02 years the commercial landings
have been declining in every season except for 2 years 95-96 &
96-97 ie. 7 out of 9 years . When will they get it? Read the Act
– When setting a TACC the Minister shall allow for non commercial
fishers and then set a TACC. There is no other law other than
the law-unto-themselves Ministry and their twisted manipulations
of the law.
- The Minister is required to make separate decisions on allowances
and TACCs for each stock. MFish propose allowances and TACCs as
shown in Table1.
The Minister is required,
for each stock, to allow for non commercial fishers and other
fishing related mortality and then allocate industry a TACC.
TOP
Recreational
Allowance
- The proposed recreational allowances in tonnes for each QMA
are set out in Table1.
- The average of the two most recent estimates of recreational
harvest has been used to estimate current recreational utilisation
of the fishery. Because the recreational harvest surveys report
on the fishstock codes an arbitrary amount (54 tonnes) was removed
from the KAH 3 estimate and added to the KAH 9 estimate to account
for area changes in establishing KAH 8.
Imagine what our catch
of kahawai could be now if industry had not been allowed to fish
down the kahawai stocks so blatantly and with so little regard
for the cultural and economic well being of New Zealanders.
These fisheries have been severely damaged and we were
left with crumbs to fish for. When one considers that the economic
return and benefit to the country over the fish down period was
virtually nil in net real terms. No added value or any real attempt
to add value – simply an easy, cheap and convenient off
season fishery that was in relatively good shape subjected to
yet another crazy race for catch history.
Any market will do as long as we can stamp our name all over the
records for future payoff when the fishery is introduced to the
QMS. Outrageous that they not only got away with it then but now
appear to be about to rewarded with a property right they can
keep or sell. Truth is stranger than fiction.
The line is becoming so vague between customary and recreational
that if they decide to adversely effect recreational harvest they
knowingly adversely effect customary harvest. Lets be very clear,
there is only commercial and non commercial.
Catch rates for kahawai have plummeted by 90% in some areas. How
can the Ministry recommend a continuance of the abysmally low
catch rates that have prevailed since the purse seine fleet depleted
this important non commercial fishery?
TOP
Maori customary
allowance
- The proposed customary allowances for each QMA are set out in
Table1.
- Policy guidelines provide several options for setting a customary
allowance. Where estimates are not available, but there
is known to be customary catch, a nominal allowance may be made.
For stocks of importance to customary Maori the allowance may
be based on the level of the recreational catch. For species and
stocks where there is some catch, but the stock is not considered
of importance to customary Maori, then the allowance may be based
on half the recreational catch.
- Exploitation of kahawai dates from the early settlement of New
Zealand when they formed a substantial food source for Maori.
In pre-European times large catches were often dried or smoked
and stored for later use. Kahawai is a known target species for
customary purposes especially on the seasonal runs around river
mouths such as the Motu River in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Large
catches are still preserved for subsistence by smoking and bottling.
Kahawai has a broad coastal distribution and can also be
found in harbours, particularly in northern New Zealand. A significant
level of customary catch could be anticipated in these areas.
Maori have had an historic interest in kahawai and it is an important
food source in some localities. MFish would welcome submissions,
particularly from Maori customary fishers, that provide information
about levels of customary kahawai catch.
- No quantitative estimates of customary fishing for kahawai are
available. It is unlikely that customary catch is at or near the
level of the recreational catch. While kahawai is considered to
be an important customary species, the numbers of recreational
fishers taking this species is likely to significantly exceed
the numbers of customary fishers. Further, a proportion of the
customary catch is probably taken within the bounds of the daily
recreational allowance of twenty kahawai per person.
If this is true for
kahawai, which it is, why are the general criteria in existence?
What is their motivation to make criteria and then argue why they
shouldn’t apply? Have they run out of things to do in Wellington?
Sounds like perpetual hard work digging holes and filling them
up.
- In the absence of quantitative information MFish proposes a
customary allowance set at 50% of the current level of recreational
utilisation.
Return to the option4
kahawai IPP rebuttal index page for more
info »
Latest news and background information on kahawai available
here »
TOP
|
