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

31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.

34. 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?
35. 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.
36. 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

37. The proposed recreational allowances in tonnes for each QMA are set out in Table1.
38. 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

39. The proposed customary allowances for each QMA are set out in Table1.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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