Kahawai Submission NCB

Northland Conservation Board Submission

Introduction of kahawai into the QMS

21 April 2004

Northland Conservation Board

Te Runanga Papa Atawhai O Te Taitokerau

PO Box 842

Whangarei

21 April 2004

Emma Knight

Ministry of Fisheries

PO Box 1020

Wellington

Submission - Introduction of Kahawai into the QMS

The Northland Conservation Board (Board), thanks the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish), both for the chance to comment on the setting of sustainability and other management controls on the kahawai ( Arripis trutta and A.xylabion ), which have been gazetted for introduction into the Quota Management System (QMS), on 1 October 2004, and for an extention to the deadline for submissions.

The Board's Authority to Comment

The Board is authorised under Section 6N (2) (a) of the Conservation Act 1987 to 'Advocate its interests at any public forum or in any statutory planning process;..' and considers that the introduction of the two kahawai species into the QMS and the effects this may have on the environmental, ecological and conservation values and wellbeing of the kahawai; and changes to the recreational and customary use values of people consequent to this change of status of the kahawai, are very clearly interests of the Board.

The Board's Sources of Information

The main sources of information for this submission are the MFish Initial Position Paper (IPP), on the introduction of kahawai and 15 other species to the QMS dated 12 January 2004 and the numerous postings of papers by mainly recreational fishing interests on their umbrella organisation option4's several internet addresses. The Board wishes to commend the huge amount of work and the final submissions by option4 as a truly magistral effort not only to safeguard but also to enhance kahawai stocks for recreational and customary fishing and for environmental and ecological reasons. The Board has also made use of professionals – including former fisheries scientists and marine biologists – and local knowledge of fishers and charter vessel operators in the preparation of this report.

Assessment of the Problem

The Board considers that there is absolutely no doubt whatever that kahawai stocks have been badly mismanaged and greatly depleted over the last 20 years:- firstly by not being included in the quota system in 1986, and secondly, by therefore instantly being available for heavy and initially uncontrolled purse seining 'just because they were there' regardless of their value or the end use of the fish - mainly as bait and fish meal - and regardless of their extensive and established traditional use and their important place in the ecological relationships of NZ coastal waters. It was an appalling plunder of a type that people had the right to expect could not happen to a great New Zealander and national icon - a fish of huge environmental, recreational and customary value. It happened to the everyperson's fish, greatly treasured for its spectacular coastal feeding displays and because it could be caught with a fighting challenge by all ages from wharf, boat, or shore, in harbours and at sea around much of the coast. It is good eating when treated properly and is important, reliable sustenance, fresh, bottled and smoked, for many coastal communities. All its values seemed secure because commercially it only contributed to the by-catch and had little commercial interest or value. Suddenly, by being left off the QMS and with virtually no stock assessment or inkling of sustainability or research of any sort it was suddenly exposed in uncontrolled quantities to the otherwise winter unemployed purse seine fleet of 12 or so boats. Many more details including controls and surveys after the event are described in the option4 submission.    

In common with a very large recreational fishing lobby the Board sees inadequacies and a strong bias toward the commercial fishing sector in the MFish IPP for kahawai. This approach is quite inappropriate given that there is only one management option presented for ministerial consideration and little evidence of any attempt to rebuild or enhance the vastly more important recreational and customary fisheries and environmental considerations.

TOP

Kahawai – More than just a Fishery

The option4 submission on the kahawai introduction to the QMS understandably gives an excellent and very much wider view of the values of the kahawai than the narrow, mainly commercial fishery constraints, of the IPP. Again the Board commends the effort and information that has gone into these sections which include:                                    

4, Kahawai Ecology, 4.1 Kahawai in the food chain, 5.Kahawai and the public, 5.1 Kahawai as food, 5.2 Customary harvest, 5.3 The fishing experience, 5.4 Visual impact, and many more. These sections certainly serve to broaden and deepen the picture of the kahawai and remind us what a huge and valuable contribution to the richness of the lives of a huge number of Kiwis the kahawai makes. Indeed the experience, use and management of the kahawai go far beyond just fishery considerations but also remind us how important it is to get the fishery considerations right!

Criticisms of the MFish IPP Approach on Kahawai

In general the Board agrees with the criticisms leveled at MFish, by the recreational fishing lobby concerning kahawai. These include:-

• Neglect of the recreational, customary and ecological values of kahawai over many years while allowing uncontrolled use of purse seiners in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
• Proposals to allow the fishery to degrade even further by basing the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC), on the recent targeted catch history of the purse seiners.
• The development of the commercial kahawai fishery to keep factory staff working during the off-season. Despite having over 20 years to develop value added products from the bulk catch which may have allowed retention of profitability from a lowered commercial catch. This has never happened and bulk prices have remained extremely low.
• A fishery so depleted that it is most unlikely that a customary take under the Deed of Settlement is possible.
• That the Minister is obliged to have regard   to social, cultural and economic factors when manipulating a stock to a level that can produce Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). With kahawai neither MSYor Biomass in known. MFish assumes present biomass to be 50% of virgin or prefished biomass. Some recreational interests think present biomass is likely to be considerably less the 50%.
• Because of major concern for the declining recreational fishery MFish's one management option   in the IPP is inadequate and does not allow for changes in related fisheries, ecological conditions, human population growth, nor other unforeseeable changes.
• MFish's one management 'option' is clearly based on maintaining commercial catching rights at the current level despite a declining fishery. Option4 claims MSY in commercial terms could mean the reduction of existing stock by another 60% until production is maximised with small fish at the expense of fewer large fish which are valuable to the recreational fishery and may well have great importance ecologically.
• There are gaps and discrepancies in the recreational fishery catch record which mean only certain survey results are realistic.
• There is no reliable catch information concerning customary fisheries.
• Incidental fishing related mortality is likely to be considerably underestimated because of dumping at sea and general non-reporting of by-catch.
• Information used to set tonnages in the IPP are derived in a variety of different ways and do not inspire confidence. Notwithstanding information principles such as in the Fisheries Act 1996 which indicate that uncertainty of information should not be used to postpone or fail to take action to achieve the purpose of the Act, there seems to be a general lack of use of the precautionary principle.- also indicated in Section 10 © of the 1996 Act.

The Board contends that option4 make a compelling case for another look at quota management for the kahawai in section 7. Management Options, in their submission especially by "removing the offending purse seine catch history'. They state:-   

"The overall (management) objective should be to restore the kahawai schools and maximise the value of kahawai to New Zealanders. Specific objectives of a rebuild strategy would be :-

1. To restore the availability of kahawai to recreational, customary and sustenance fishers.
2. To improve the management of non-commercial fisheries.
3. To reduce the impact of kahawai fisheries on associated and dependent species.
4. To use a precautionary approach to the management of this important inshore shared fishery until more accurate data are available.
5. To develop a harvest strategy that will meet these objectives."

TOP

In Sections 7.3 The path to recovery, and 7.4 Revised kahawai TAC, of their submission option4 declare that access to reasonable catch rates must be restored for all non-commercial fishers and that the level of TACC proposed in the IPP will not only not allow stock rebuilding but that stocks would be allowed to fall to 40% of the current level before TACC's are able to be cut. option4 also state that non-commercial fishers want a lower TAC and that the kahawai fishery must be managed above the biomass which will support maximum sustainable yield. These measures should, as stocks rebuild, increase both the number and size of kahawai available to non-commercial fishers.

option4 reject the single management scheme prepared by MFish and recommend the following alternative:-

• A TAC of 6900 tonnes derived from the best estimates of natural mortality
• Discounting the purse seine catch history for kahawai target shots thus basing the TACC largely on the by-catch of kahawai.
• Basing recreational fishing estimates from the best, least biased, recreational fishing surveys (2000 & 2001).
• Use a customary harvest of half the recreational harvest.
• Use a commercial fishing related mortality (all methods), of 5%
• Use a minimum commercial allowance in the Kermadec area for the other species of kahawai ( A. xylabion ).

A comparison of   TAC (1), TACC (2), Customary catch (3), Recreational catch (4), and other mortality (5), from management areas KAH1-4,8 & 10, from the IPP and option4 submission is given below:-

The major changes, in the option4 recommendation over the IPP proposal are a significant (9.5%), decrease in TAC, a nearly three-fold decrease in commercial quota, a significant increase in customary quota, a large increase in recreational quota and a halving of allowance for other mortality.

The Board's Recommendation

The Board has carefully considered the information in both the IPP and option4 submission and has no hesitation in accepting that the option4 proposal, or something very close to it, will have a substantial enhancing effect on kahawai stocks and consequently on its ecological relationships including sea bird feeding, as well as enhancing the very important nationwide customary and recreational fishing. The Board therefore recommends that the option4 quota management proposal or something very close to it be introduced for kahawai in the 1 October 2004 QMS fish stock introductions.

Yours faithfully,

L.D. Ritchie

chairperson

TOP

APPENDIX 1

Using Part of the TAC of a Fishery Species (Kahawai), for Conservation Purposes

Establishing 10% of NZ marine waters as 'marine reserves' is still government policy as of April 2004. However the 10% figure is now generally taken to mean 10% of NZ waters to be classed as marine protected area (MPA), meaning (according to preamble of Marine Reserve Bill 2001) "10% of NZ waters to be protected by the MR Act 'and other means'"-

And of course, 'other means' can mean anything from seasonal gear or area restrictions to no anchoring/fishing zones alongside communication cables.  

Background Reasoning  

A no-take marine reserve under the Marine Reserves Act 1971 (and in the new MR Bill), offers 'complete protection' to the habitats and life forms within the designated MR area. There is nothing to stop animals or indeed plants which stray outside the designated area from being taken. In other words 'sedentary' or closely territorial or home ranging animals and plants within the MR have almost complete protection. Those that move a little or a lot within or over the boundaries of a MR have relatively less protection depending on how far and how often they move in and out of a MR. In some cases, species which have high values for customary, heritage, conservation, tourism, commercial and recreation reasons eg kingfish, kahawai and rocklobster will not get complete protection because they move in and out or through marine reserves frequently. In the case of the 'coastal pelagics', kingfish and kahawai, protection offered by a MR is very small unless the MR is very large.

One way of ensuring that a highly mobile species like kahawai gets protection by MR in the same manner as sedentary animals which inhabit MRs, and in a manner which is entirely consistent with the philosophy and intent of MRs is to give legal protection to 10% of the available biomass of kahawai by reducing the TAC by 10% across the board. That is, a TAC is derived as is the recommended one of 6 900 tonnes by option4 (for example, from:-

•  the best estimate of natural mortality

•  TACC based on the by-catch of kahawai (ie purse seine catch disallowed)

•  Recreational harvest based on 2000 and 2001 surveys

•  Customary harvest based on half of recreational harvest

•  Fishing related mortality at 5% of all commercial fishing methods

•  Minimal commercial allowance in Kermadec area (KAH 10)

This TAC is then further reduced by 10% or 690 tonnes because of its environmental, conservation, heritage, and non-extractive tourism and recreation eg 'Spectacle' values.

These values, while virtually ignored by MFish because it has never had to consider them, receive, and rightly so, considerable mention in the option4 submission.

The spectacle of fish/plankton/seabird/marine mammal feeding melees is indeed one of the most thrilling sights people can witness at sea. There may be many species of fish/plankton and seabird present but it is nearly always one dominant fish, and that is usually the kahawai in coastal waters, which starts and dominates in the feeding melee by trapping one or more planktonic prey species, often post-larval or juvenile fish, at or near the sea surface. This in turn allows birds to feed and often one may dominate but others will join in and a dozen or more species of bird and fish may be involved not to mention more than one prey species and possibly either or both of the two common dolphins and in restricted localities the much rarer Hectors or Maui's dolphins.

These spectacles are not only incredibly thrilling to witness at close quarters where the noise, spray and confusion can be intense but also from further afield where towering dives by gannets in quick succession and electric sheets of spray by larger predators such as kingfish or other fish trying to avoid them can be seen against a background of foam and swirling kahawai bodies over large areas. Sadly these feeding melees are rare in northern coastal waters today and when they are encountered are usually small with far fewer participants. For instance on the mid Northland east coast usually only small schools of subadult and small adult kahawai are seen and often without a single bird in sight. And if there are birds present they are often only one or two species of gull in very small numbers and no terns.

Unfortunately good documentation of this huge reduction in kahawai/plankton/ seabird activity is not available but it is the shared experience of locals, boaties and fishers throughout these coastal waters and absolutely cannot be denied.   

Sadly these feeding relationships and the components that contribute to them often seem to become degraded even to the point of becoming rare before the loss and what it indicates is realised. There can be little doubt in the minds of sea devotees, keen boaties and fishers that abundant schools of kahawai of all sizes and frequently seen large vibrant multi-species feeding relationships are a sign of 'good biological health' amongst the species present, for the biodiversity generally and in the marine environment in which they occur.

It is also entirely possible that some fishing interest groups may see nil or little environmental, conservation, tourism or non-extractive recreational values in kahawai schools and the fish/ bird/plankton feeding relationships though this seems unlikely in NZ where interest and information about the sea is considerable and widespread.