The Minister's Final Decision
Tarakihi 1 (TAR 1 - Auckland (West and East))

In my letter of 9 July I expressed a preliminary view supporting the proposed TAC, allowances, and TACC for TAR 1 as outlined in the AMP proposal from the Northern Inshore Fisheries Company Limited. However, given the multi-sector nature of the fishery, I noted in my preliminary view that the recreational and customary sectors had not provided comment on the proposal at that time, and I would be interested in arrangements to spread increased catch so as to avoid localised depletion. I noted that the proposal provided no detail to support the proponent's intention to implement such arrangements.

Submissions from recreational fishing interests confirmed the importance of the fishery to them, and their concerns that the proposal could affect recreational and customary interests in the fishery, both in the Bay of Plenty and east Northland regions.

The AMP framework is designed to allow for 'trial' fishing within an administrative system, to derive information from fishing subject to careful monitoring. In shared fisheries like TAR 1, I am inclined to be cautious, because those who gain no benefit from the increased TACC in the short term, also carry the risks attendant on the increased fishing. It is also more difficult to cater for the different harvesting strategies of the sectors in the uncertain circumstances of such 'trial' fishing.

The concern that I have regarding the proposal for TAR 1 is that the requested TACC increase is substantial, representing a 43% increase above current commercial catch. There is therefore the prospect of significantly increased catch impacting on the interests of the non-commercial sector.

In particular, there is insufficient information available at this time to adequately assess the probability or degree of any effect of the AMP proposal on recreational catch. That uncertainty is compounded without details of how appropriate catch spreading will be ensured to avoid the risk of localised depletion and effects on other sectors' interests. Without verifiable catch spreading arrangements, the increase to the TACC (some 600 tonnes) could be taken within one or more confined areas.

I note that the proponent, the Northern Inshore Fisheries Company Ltd, has offered further discussion after viewing the MFish final advice paper. I consider that to be impractical at this late stage in the decision-making process, but view such an offer as auguring well for the future. But at this time, having considered the proposal, the views of submitters, and the advice of MFish, my decision is to decline the proposal by the Northern Inshore Fisheries Company Limited to increase the TACC for TAR 1 to 1997 tonnes under the AMP.

With further discussion and the development of appropriate arrangements to address the possibility of affecting non-commercial interests in TAR 1, an AMP proposal holds promise as a means of cost-effectively deriving useful information from the fishery in the future. I hope that the different interest groups are able to work together to develop acceptable arrangements.

Section 13(10) of the Act requires that I set a TAC for a stock if I propose to set or vary a TACC for a stock for which an initial TAC was not set. Consequently, I have decided to set a TAC of 1,773 tonnes for TAR 1. Within that TAC, I have decided to make allowances of 45 tonnes for Maori customary non-commercial catch, 310 tonnes for recreational catch, 20 tonnes for all other mortality to the stock caused by fishing, and to retain the TACC for TAR 1 at 1,398 tonnes.