New Species Submission

New Species Submission on

Behalf of Non-Commercial Fishers

option4

2 Aug 2004

Introduction of New Stocks into the Quota Management System on 1 October 2005

August 2, 2004

option4

PO Box 37-951

Parnell

AUCKLAND

contact@option4.co.nz

Contents

1. Introduction

The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) has advised that eight new species are being considered for introduction to the Quota Management System on 1 October 2005. A consultation document on the introduction of seaweeds into the QMS was sent to stakeholders in April. A further consultation document was issued on 8 June 2004.

Section 19 of the Fisheries Act 1996 requires the Minister of Fisheries to consider several matters when making a decision as to whether or not a stock should be introduced into the QMS. These include the costs and benefits of QMS introduction, the Quota Management Areas that will apply, the proposed fishing year, whether to use greenweight or some other unit of measure and other matters that may be contemplated by the 1996 Act.

The consultation document contains matters relevant to the Minister's decision and the Ministry's preliminary recommendations on whether the species or stocks should be introduced into the QMS. MFish has invited stakeholders to provide comments on the consultation document.

Original deadline for comments was 16 July 2004. MFish granted option4 an extension to 2 August 2004.

This document comprises the submission from option4 an NGO which promotes the interests of non-commercial marine fishers in New Zealand.

1.1 Shellfish Introduction

option4 does not accept the introduction of the shellfish species pipis, tuatua and cockles into the QMS when no resource assessment has been completed. At the very least, if these species were to enter the QMS the existing areas allocated for commercial harvest should be maintained. The 1991/161 regulations specify the areas suitable for commercial tuatua take and the 1989/291 regulations cover cockles and pipis. These regulations were put in place when it was recognised that commercial harvesting of shellfish would have an adverse impact on non-commercial take.

We strongly object to Ministry of Fisheries proposals to sell off commercial harvesting rights to these species while there is such uncertainty in information. The decline in abundance of tuatua is a serious resource issue that has not been addressed. Until the Ministry sort this issue out they should not be considering allocating more shellfish species to commercial interests.

The risk of over allocating these species could well see the public including Maori customary fishing interests adversely affected. While the Minister has to "allow for" recreational interests he must certainly give priority to Maori customary interests in such important traditional kaimoana.

We strongly recommend these species are not introduced into the QMS until there is more certainty in information so that compensation issues can be avoided in the future. To do this we need an assessment of current resources so provision can be made for all interests.

2. Albacore Tuna (ALB)

Albacore are a welcome by-catch and occasional target of offshore troll fishing by non-commercial fishers. They are the targeted gamefish species for the West Coast and southern waters and are caught in moderate numbers by fishers in the Bay of Plenty, Poverty Bay, Hawke Bay, Wairarapa coast and out of New Plymouth. They are good eating often being referred to as "chicken of the sea".

Albacore are also a significant by-catch of the tuna longline fishery and a season target species in the tuna troll fishery, particularly on the West Coast of both islands. Albacore are part of a large stock which is wide spread across the South Pacific. We are concerned that spatial conflict between commercial tuna vessels and non-commercial fishers may develop if this fishery expands and will ask for MFish and industry to address this as it arises.

• option4 agrees with albacore tuna being introduced into the QMS on 1 October 2005.
• We support the proposed fishing year of 1 October to 30 September that applies to other tuna species.
• Agree the QMA for albacore tuna, ALB1, should be FMAs 1 – 10 combined.
• option4 also agree with greenweight being the unit of measurement for this fishery.
• Agree with albacore tuna being included on the Third Schedule to the Fisheries Act 1996.

option4 also agree that active management of this fishery is required and that the interests of non-commercial fishers will need to be allowed for as the non-commercial fishery develops in the future.

3. Cockles (COC)

Cockles are an important species for customary and sustenance fishers in many areas. They are generally the most accessible of the main inter-tidal shellfish species as they live above mean low water mark in sheltered bays and harbours. Non-commercial fishers prefer large cockles. These are often found where moderate current flows of clean seawater occur. There can be large beds of small cockles found in the upper reaches of harbours or estuaries that are of limited interest to non-commercial or commercial fishers. Runoff and siltation from land has adversely affected many cockle beds, smothering them or reducing their ability to regenerate.

There are large cockle beds in some areas that must be off-limits to commercial fishing because of their importance to local communities or the ecosystem. Commercial cockle harvest in the Firth of Thames on the Ramsar site of international significance for wading birds would bring strong local and international condemnation.

• option4 notes there is only limited stock assessment information to determine the stock status of cockles.
• There are no accurate estimates of current biomass or sustainable yield. We note that no investigation has been done to determine potential yield.
• We agree with the MFish assessment that cockles are vulnerable to the effects of fishing, habitat disturbance and are particularly susceptible to localised depletion.
• The Ministry must accept that an increase in fishing effort will give rise to sustainability concerns in new harvest areas.
• The prospect of commercial fishers having a free hand to catch their TACC anywhere they like in an FMA is an outcome that the public will not support. If MFish are going to restrict commercial fishers to specific beds that have been surveyed as suitable, then they will need to manage by regulation anyway.

• Agree with MFish assessment that cockles do require active management to ensure sustainability.
• Agree with MFish assessment that an increase in catch levels could lead to utilisation issues between commercial and non-commercial users.
• option4 agrees that unconstrained fishing effort could have an adverse effect on the aquatic environment or the sustainability of other species and/or biological diversity and on associated and dependent species.

Conclusion

option4 does not support the introduction of cockles (other than those already in the QMS) into the QMS at this time. It seems that the main argument put forward for its introduction is that there is no alternative. The QMS on its own is not an adequate management regime for discrete shellfish beds. A more comprehensive management strategy is required.

We are very concerned the Ministry are proposing to introduce this species into the QMS despite the absence of good data on which to base catch limits.

Commercial harvesting must not be allowed in the most accessible areas for the public, or sites of significance for wading birds.

We are particularly concerned for this species as cockles are a traditional food source for many people. Cockles are harvested for customary Maori purposes and the priority accorded to this activity should remain.

Until the QMS adequately recognises the rights of future generations of non-commercial fishers to access fisheries of traditional and cultural importance this species should not be given away in perpetuity via quota rights. Let us be very clear: cockles are not a sport fishery, they are gathered for the purposes of eating. The public has an outright priority to gather cockles for sustenance purposes.

The Ministry acknowledge that conflict may arise due to increasing population. Population increase is inevitable and policy needs to recognise this factor.   The Ministry does not seem to be inclined to acknowledge the impact of increasing population on fish stocks by reallocation of quota from the commercial sector to the non-commercial sector. Once the commercial allocations are made they are very difficult to adjust in order to allow for the non-commercial sector, even when it is clear that increasing population has resulted in increased fishing effort.

option4 object to this species being introduced into the QMS until there is a shift in policy and provisions are made to accommodate increases in population and fishing effort. The rights of non-commercial fishers, including Maori customary, must come first in a fishery of such social, cultural, environmental and ecological value.

We reject the Ministry statement, " all major sedentary shellfish species are either currently or will be managed under the QMS framework." This suggests a pre-determination on the part of the Ministry of Fisheries. We do not accept that all cockle resources need to be managed under the QMS.

TOP

4. Non-QMS Dredge Oysters (OYS)

The Ministry of Fisheries suggests there is a small recreational take of non-QMS dredge oysters and no information is available on Maori customary harvest. We question why there is no data on Maori customary harvest levels when MFish collects information from customary permits that are issued. We also understand MFish has conducted a survey on the non-commercial harvest of non-QMS dredge oysters in the SFMA and question when this information is going to be made available. The accessibility of non-QMS dredge oysters in coastal and harbour environments would suggest non-commercial users take them for food.

• option4 notes there is only limited stock assessment information to determine the status of non-QMS dredge oysters and that catch records are unreliable.
• We note that no investigation has been made to determine the status or potential yield of non-QMS oyster stocks.
• We agree with the MFish assessment that non-QMS dredge oysters will be susceptible to over fishing in an open access environment.
• The Ministry suggests that commercial dredging can have adverse effects on the aquatic environment.   We contend it does have an adverse effect on the environment and affects biological diversity.
• The Minister must not allow indiscriminate use of heavy commercial dredges anywhere along our coast. This fishing method should be restricted to areas approved for dredging where there is a current biotoxin clearance.
• The Ministry must accept that an increase in fishing effort will give rise to
  sustainability concerns for other species.
• The prospect of commercial fishers having a free hand to catch their TACC anywhere they like in an FMA is an outcome that the public will not support. If MFish is going to restrict commercial fishers to specific beds that have been surveyed as suitable, then they will need to manage by regulation in any case.
• We agree with MFish assessment that non-QMS dredge oysters will require active management to ensure sustainability.
• We agree with MFish assessment that competition between commercial and non-commercial sectors may lead to a decrease in the quality of the oyster fishery for the non-commercial sector. This could also mean that the non-commercial sector is not being "allowed for" as per section 21 of the Fisheries Act 1996.

Conclusion

option4 does not support the introduction of non-QMS dredge oysters into the QMS at this time. It seems that the main argument put forward for its introduction is that there is no alternative. The QMS on its own is not an adequate management regime for discrete shellfish beds. A more comprehensive management strategy is required and would require regulations that prohibit the taking of dredge oysters, or the use of dredges, in certain times and places.

We are very concerned the Ministry is proposing to introduce this species into the QMS despite the absence of good data on which to base catch limits..

The QMS does not adequately recognise the rights of future generations of non-commercial fishers to access fisheries of traditional and cultural importance. Until it does, this species should not be given away in perpetuity in the form of quota rights.

option4 object to this species being introduced into the QMS until there is a shift in policy and provisions are made to accommodate increases in population and fishing effort. The rights of non-commercial fishers, including Maori customary, must come first in a fishery of such environmental and ecological value.

5. Non-QMS Scallops (SCA)

Scallops are significant to both recreational and customary Maori fishers. Commercial scallop fisheries have a checkered history. The best, most profitable, beds were fished into oblivion in just a few years and the boats moved on to the next fishery. This is exactly the type of fishery that will develop with TACCs for large FMAs. There will be serial depletion of the best scallop beds and it is the public and the environment that will pay the price yet again.

• option4 notes there is only limited stock assessment information to determine the status of non-QMS scallops and that catch records are unreliable.  
• We note that no investigation has been done to determine the status or potential yield of non-QMS scallops.
• We agree with the MFish assessment that scallops will be susceptible to overfishing in an open access environment.
• Scallop populations vary greatly from year to year and therefore require intensive management if introduced into the QMS.
• Ministry suggest commercial dredging can have adverse effects on the aquatic environment.   We contend it does have an adverse effect on the environment and associated species. It degrades the structure and biodiversity of the seabed, making the area less productive.
• The Ministry states: " previously undredged areas will be subject to a higher level of adverse affects than modified habitat that supports the QMS stocks," In that case, surely, commercial fishing should be limited to existing areas in order to comply with sections 8 and 9 (b) of the Fisheries Act 1996.
• The Ministry must accept that an increase in fishing effort will give rise to sustainability concerns in new harvest areas.
• The prospect of commercial fishers having a free hand to dredge anywhere they like in an FMA is an outcome that the public will not support. If MFish are going to restrict commercial fishers to specific beds that have been surveyed as suitable, then they will need to manage by regulation anyway.

• We agree with MFish assessment that scallops do require active management to ensure sustainability.
• We agree with MFish assessment that an increase in catch levels in shared areas will lead to conflict of access.

Conclusion

option4 does not support the introduction of scallops (other than those already in the QMS) into the QMS at this time. It seems that the main argument put forward for its introduction is that there is no alternative. The QMS on its own is not an adequate management regime for discrete shellfish beds. A more comprehensive management strategy is required.

Cost has been raised as a reason for not managing scallops in sub-areas of FMAs as recommended by NIWA. Ministry also say this type of management would be impractical. If Ministry cannot recover costs to manage this fishery within the QMS framework then non-QMS scallops should not be introduced into the System.

We are very concerned the Ministry is proposing to introduce this species into the QMS despite the absence of good data on which to base catch limits. We disagree with the Ministry's assertion that " the QMS also has inherent incentives to mitigate the potential effects of fishing on the aquatic environment and on other fisheries sectors through adopting environmentally appropriate technologies and fishing practices..". What proof does Ministry have to support this claim? Commercial dredges being employed in our scallop fishery have been used for years and caused damage in many areas. The Minister must not allow indiscriminate use of these heavy commercial dredges anywhere along our coast. This fishing method should be restricted to areas approved for dredging where there is a current biotoxin clearance.

Commercial harvesting must not be allowed in the most accessible areas for recreational or Maori customary fishers. Scallops are harvested for customary Maori purposes and the priority accorded to this activity should remain.

Until the QMS adequately recognises the rights of future generations of non-commercial fishers to access fisheries of traditional and cultural importance this species should not be given away in perpetuity via quota rights.

There is no evidence that the Ministry of Fisheries addresses issues of commercial allocation of quota set at an inappropriately high level in a timely manner. Until the Ministry demonstrates a policy change where the interests of recreational and Maori customary fishers are accounted for as population and fishing effort increases, the non-QMS scallops should remain outside the QMS.

option4 object to this species being introduced into the QMS until there is a shift in policy and provisions are made to accommodate increases in population and fishing effort. The rights of non-commercial fishers including Maori customary must come first in a fishery of such social, cultural, environmental and ecological value.

TOP

6. Pipi (PPI)

Pipi is the most popular non-commercial intertidal shellfish harvested in the north. They are an important species for customary and sustenance fishers. Sustenance fishing includes people of all races whose primary objective is to collect food for the table, rather than recreation or enjoyment of the coastal environment.

Pipi are also an important link in the coastal ecology, providing food for a range of invertebrates, fishes and wading birds. They form dense beds that stabilise the sand banks, as does the dead shell.

We find it incredulous that " MFish is unaware of any concerns by non-commercial fishers on the availability of pipi outside Whangarei Harbour ". Surely the Intertidal shellfish monitoring in the Auckland FMA are a result of widespread concerns in the wider Auckland region about the biomass of edible shellfish such as pipi. The non-commercial bag limit for pipi was dropped from 150 per person to 50 per person in Auckland and Coromandel because of widespread concern for the sustainability of the resource. Also, MFish has been approached a number of times by residents in the Bay of Islands concerned over the depletion of local pipi beds.

• option4 notes there is only limited stock assessment information to determine the stock status of pipi.
• There are no estimates of current or reference biomass, or sustainable yield.
• We agree with the MFish assessment that pipi distribution is patchy, vulnerable to the effects of fishing, habitat disturbance and susceptible to localised depletion.
• We agree with MFish assessment that pipi do require active management to ensure sustainability.
• We agree with MFish assessment that an increase in catch levels could lead to utilisation issues between commercial and non-commercial users.
• option4 agree that pipi play an important role in the coastal and estuarine ecosystems.
• We agree that pipi inhabit both the intertidal and subtidal zones of sheltered beaches in bays, harbours and estuary mouths.   Therefore MFish is wrong to assume that pipi are " likely to be taken as by catch in the target tuatua and surf clam fisheries" which are only found in commercial quantities on exposed sandy beaches.

Conclusion

option4 does not support the introduction of pipi into the QMS.

We are very concerned the Ministry are proposing to introduce this species into the QMS despite the absence of good data on which to base catch limits.

It does not seem logical to on the one hand recognise the species is vulnerable to localised depletion and then propose to have such large management areas in which quota can be harvested. This is not environmentally or socially acceptable.

The prospect of commercial fishers having a free hand to catch their TACC anywhere they like in an FMA is an outcome that the public will not support. If MFish are going to restrict commercial fishers to specific beds that have been surveyed as suitable then they will need to manage by regulation anyway.

We are particularly concerned for this species, as pipi are a traditional food source for many people. Pipi are harvested for customary Maori purposes and the priority accorded to this activity should remain.

There is no mention in the proposal of how the TACC will be allocated. If it follows current practice quota will be tendered to the highest bidder, which will further alienate local communities. The cost of entry to the fishery will be driven up by speculators and fishing companies.

Until the QMS adequately recognises the rights of future generations of non-commercial fishers to access fisheries of traditional and cultural importance this species should not be given away in perpetuity via quota rights.

The Ministry acknowledges that conflict may arise due to increasing population. Population increase is inevitable and policy needs to recognise this factor.   The Ministry does not seem to be inclined to acknowledge the impact of increasing population on fish stocks by reallocation of quota from the commercial sector to the non-commercial sector. Once the commercial allocations are made they are very difficult to adjust in order to allow for the non-commercial sector, even if it is clear that increasing population has resulted in increased fishing effort.

option4 object to this species being introduced into the QMS until there is a shift in policy and provisions are made to accommodate increases in population and fishing effort. The rights of non-commercial fishers, including Maori customary, must come first in a fishery of such social, cultural and ecological value.

7. Skipjack Tuna (SKJ)

Skipjack tuna are caught in moderate quantities by non-commercial fishers in the North. It is used mainly as bait, but fresh and well chilled it also makes good sashimi. option4 acknowledges that skipjack tuna taken in New Zealand are part of a large Pacific stock. Our domestic landings are a minor part of the Pacific fishery. We are concerned that spatial conflict with purse seine vessels may develop as this fishery expands (particularly now that New Zealand owned super seiners are operating here) and will ask for MFish and industry to address this as it arises.

• option4 agrees with skipjack tuna being introduced into the QMS on 1 October 2005.
• We support the proposal to have the fishing year from 1 October to 30 September in line with other tuna species.

• option4 agree the Quota Management Area should be SKJ1 incorporating all FMAs.
• We agree that greenweight should be the unit of measurement.
• We ask that scientific observer coverage be allocated to the skipjack purse seine fishery to quantify by-catch, which is known to include striped marlin and blue marlin.

8. Tuatua (TUA)

Tuatua are often abundant on exposed sandy beaches particularly on the long west coast beaches of the North Island. At times they are readily accessible at mid tide level and at times they may remain relatively inaccessible beyond mean low tide level. Storms and high seas can also make the beds inaccessible. On eastern   beaches tuatua are often smaller and more localised. Tuatua are an important species for customary and sustenance fishers in many areas.

• option4 notes there is only limited stock assessment information to determine the stock status of tuatua.
• There are no estimates of current or reference biomass, or sustainable yield.
• We agree with the MFish assessment that tuatua are found in discrete bands within the intertidal and upper subtidal zone. This distinction makes them vulnerable to the effects of fishing, habitat disturbance and particularly susceptible to localised depletion, especially on east coast beaches.
• The Ministry must acknowledge that the demise of toheroa on the most exposed surf beaches is a sign of significant changes in that environment. Care must be taken with land use and harvesting to ensure that tuatua do not follow.
• We agree with MFish assessment that tuatua require active management to ensure sustainability.
• We agree with MFish assessment that an increase in catch levels could lead to utilisation issues between commercial and non-commercial users.
• option4 agrees that unconstrained fishing effort could have an adverse effect on associated and dependent species and the physical coastal environment, due to the important role tuatua plays in the coastal ecosystems.

MFish shows a lack of understanding of the biology of tuatua when they claim   " Increased effort in the associated shellfish fisheries such as cockle and pipi may also result in an increase in by-catch of tuatua that may not be sustainable ." There is no overlap of tuatua with major beds of cockle or pipi. Tuatua   are not found in estuarine or in normal harbour conditions. The entrance of the Kaipara harbour is an exceptional environment with high current flows and sand movement.

Conclusion

option4 does not support the introduction of tuatua into the QMS at this time. It seems that the main argument put forward for its introduction is that there is no alternative. The QMS on its own is not an adequate management regime for discrete shellfish beds. A more comprehensive management strategy is required.

We are very concerned the Ministry is proposing to introduce this species into the QMS despite the absence of good data on which to base catch limits.

If MFish is going to restrict commercial fishers to specific tuatua beds that have been surveyed as suitable, then they will need to manage by regulation anyway. Commercial harvesting must not be allowed in the most accessible areas for the public.

We are particularly concerned for this species, as tuatua are a traditional food source for many people. Tuatua are harvested for customary Maori purposes and the priority accorded to this activity should remain.

Until the QMS adequately recognises the rights of future generations of non-commercial fishers to access fisheries of traditional and cultural importance this species should not be given away in perpetuity via quota rights.

The Ministry acknowledge that conflict may arise due to increasing population. Population increase is inevitable and policy needs to recognise this factor.   The Ministry does not seem to be inclined to acknowledge the impact of increasing population on fish stocks by reallocation of quota from the commercial sector to the non-commercial sector. Once the commercial allocations are made they are very difficult to adjust in order to allow for the non-commercial sector, even if it is clear that increasing population has resulted in increased fishing effort.

option4 object to this species being introduced into the QMS until there is a shift in policy and provisions are made to accommodate increases in population and fishing effort. The rights of non-commercial fishers, including Maori customary, must come first in a fishery of such social, cultural, environmental and ecological value.

Paul Barnes

On behalf of the option4 team

PO Box 37 951

Parnell

AUCKLAND

TOP