|
March 2002
This submission
is an attempt to capture the evolving perspective of tuna fishers
in the largest individually subscribed fishery in New Zealand. The
fishery has unique advantages and unique 'challenges', we request
that MFish take a fresh look at the fishery in line with an evolving
climate of resource management, evident by changing legislative
frameworks both nationally and internationally.
Tuna NZ Inc
also acknowledge the long term involvement of a charter arrangement
between a New Zealand and Japanese company, we acknowledge that
this venture has assisted in retaining the TAC at the level today.
Dialogue is exchanged over management issues and we accept that
this company may wish to seek allocation to ensure that their historical
access to the fishery is not further eroded by an increase in participants.
In this issue
Tuna NZ Inc reject comments made in the SeaFIC submission regarding
the tuna fishery on the grounds that they are not representative
of the majority of participants.
Tuna NZ do not
support any level of priority to allocate property rights for individual
ownership of the tuna's and associated species. We do however wish
to define the participants through the introduction of a permit
moratorium
Species listed
that are landed by Tuna NZ Inc members
Rays bream
Sth Bluefin Tuna
Northern bluefin tuna
Big eye tuna
Yellowfin tuna
Albacore tuna
Broadbill swordfish
Moonfish
Blue shark
Mako shark
Porbeagle shark
Tuna NZ Inc make comments on parts of the MFish correspondence;
- We acknowledge
the consideration given by MFish to the complexities of the highly
migratory species fisheries, reflected in the MFish timetable
for possible introduction - 2004. We value this regard.
- Tuna NZ Inc
and the participants differ in their opinion on the MFish view
that the QMS ensures resource sustainability, too many of today's
fishers would describe events contrary to this statement both
in those fisheries where allocation has occurred and for those
that are yet to be allocated. The prospect to build a catch history
equally creates a 'race for fish'. Indeed contrary to the views
that private ownership encourages responsibility the following
statement signals the opposite, and is intensified given the number
of nations competing for a stake holding in the tuna fishery;
…the reason
industry interests still have an urge to deplete the resource
is just the same as for the destruction of a slow-growth forest.
To liquidate the asset, freeing up funds for higher returns elsewhere.
The difference of forests from ocean resources strengthens this
incentive: Not only is the investment yield from conservation
attenuated by a lack of control over fish in their fugitive state,
but - unless shares for a species are totally held by a 'sole
owner' - a partial ownership dulls the motive further for restoration
or protecting the ocean's bounty of fish. The incentive for overfishing
is intensified by ITQ's, and not reduced as claimed.
- The statement
regarding the QMS as providing the best opportunity for more efficient
utilisation considers very narrow parameters. Recognition is given
to the work the recreational sector has undertaken to quantify
the value of both private and commercial charter activity. An
accurate measurement needs to be undertaken of some of the other
hidden benefits to coastal communities, we consider this value
to match and exceed the value of 'quota stock on the foreign exchange'.
- Range of
species
It should be noted that the species listed in the MFish correspondence
does not cover the complete list of species that those members
who surface longline land.
There could be as many as 10 other species (eg) escolar, butterfly
tuna, mahi mahi landed at varying times. Tuna NZ Inc have expressed
a desire that ALL of the species interacted with remain a suite
to prevent artificially created management issues (not able to
fish in areas due to no authorisation to land one of the species).
Closer investigation is required.
- Catch History
Years
Tonnages recorded use the 1999/00 landing records for tuna and
the 1990/91 years for associated species. The difference in the
effort of those targeting tuna has increased significantly over
this 9 year period, the participants have also changed. We point
out that there is an imbalance in the tonnages using different
year landing records.
The
more logical approach would be to assess fishing capacity based
upon current fishing activity, develop management measures to
justify this level of fishing activity (meeting sustainability
and utilisation ,scale of economies rationalisation) AND curb
greater expansion via a permit moratorium on the issue of new
and un utilised permits. This would bring about a 'settling' period
and allay concerns from other stakeholders expressing concern
about seabird by catch and the increasing take of broadbill swordfish
(ie) an initial management measure has been taken).
The
extent of the fishery is reasonably well documented via observer
coverage and there are very few 'hidden' fisheries related issues.
We assume that MFish have considered that by reducing an allowable
tonnage of species to be landed does not necessarily ensure good
fisheries management. If the highly migratory species 'mix' is
not adequately reflected by current landings, objectives of sustainability
would be undermined, challenging fishers ability to meet their
obligations under current national and international fisheries
legislation.
Tuna
NZ understand the legislative responsibility to consider species
associated to and dependant upon target species, and have concluded
that in order to gain greater information species need to be dealt
with in a more strategic manner with a level of priority attached
to their 'interest'. These would then be progressed through the
formal processes of the Fishery Assessment/ Aquatic Environment
Working Groups. To ensure that this is 'affordable' a pre-assessment
criteria would be undertaken to ensure that fishers were committed
to the research undertaken.
Factors Influencing
Fishers Thinking
The backlash against the Quota Management System has arisen over
interference of the allocation process. Those that are more politically
inclined and knowledgeable about the 'system' appear to have made
greater gains at time of determining catch history. Certain individuals
have been identified as influencing outcomes more than others, therefore
the integrity of the system is open to challenge. The following
comments highlight the global trend that demands legitimacy in fisheries
management
Those that waver
in their views do so after pressure has been applied by the threat
of a venture that would see a SeaFIC Director lead a New Zealand
Company to purse seine approximately half the STN TAC and have it
farmed on in Australian waters. There are no guidelines available
legally for this type of activity, however it would have huge implications
to the sustainability of the entire tuna fishery in New Zealand's
EEZ (Tuna NZ have corresponded separately with the Ministry about
this matter).
Legitimacy
It is widely assumed that legitimacy is conducive to compliance,
that fishers will adhere to rules and regulations if they consider
the management scheme as legitimate. It must be stressed however
that legitimacy is not the only factor that may lead fishers to
observe regulations. David Held's list of factors that may produce
compliance is useful
1. Coercion,
2. Tradition
3. Apathy
4. Pragmatic acquiescence
5. Instrumental acceptance
6. Normative agreement
7. Ideal normative agreement
Of these factors legitimacy applies only to the sixth and seventh,
according to Held. Here the support is normatively based; citizens
adhere to rules and regulations because they regard them as justified
and reasonable. Alternatively, as indicated in 1-5, they could adhere
to rules because they are forced to do so, because of "blind'
routine, or as a result of strategic calculation respecting what
may achieve the highest individual gain.
The Quota Management
System is not seen as a legitimate form of Fisheries Management.
The tuna and associated highly migratory species fishery in NZ is
in URGENT NEED OF A MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK, allocating the resource
amongst users is not management.
It is refreshing
to read that MFish have stated that the QMS is about money, in the
past it has been confused with fisheries management, we concur that
the argument supporting the allocation of fisheries resources to
individuals is founded in economics, this taken from the paper 'Quotas
as a Fisheries Management Tool'
Before turning
to the detailed workings of ITQs, it is useful to place ITQ's in
their historical perspective. Development of property rights in
fisheries (cf., Hanna, 1990, 1994a; Scott, 1986, 1989a, b), coupled
with increasing concern over economic efficiency and growing reliance
on the market for resource allocation, can be seen as one more step
in the historical process of widening and deepening markets in economies
(cf., Polanyi, 1944). Thus, ITQs are part of the current
global expansion and integration of markets extended to fisheries.
Again we reiterate
the highly migratory species fishery in New Zealand is in urgent
need of MANAGEMENT. It is extremely questionable if there will be
global agreement on the allocation of the commons to private property,
how then is New Zealand able to claim ownership and allocate rights
in perpetuity upon a resource that merely passes through its EEZ?
The time is well overdue for the emphasis to shift to fisheries
management and move away from the economic experiment that the rest
of the world is NOT going to follow.
There is a suspicion
that based on the decade + of experience since the QMS was introduced
that the same pattern will emerge with fishers having a distinct
disadvantage of being at sea and not participating in the establishment
of the management framework. Often finding out too late that decisions
have left little alternative than to exit. Those that have a well
established resource base certainly are well equipped to compete
because they have more expendable capital, this in itself sustains
the inequality of rights ownership.
In sum, throughout
history as societies are increasingly subjected to economic rationalisation,
frequently governed by markets, that is, as economic forces become
the predominant organising force of society, social structures and
labor relations change, often undergoing substantial upheaval. This
was certainly the case when medieval European commons were converted
to private property as part of the development of a market economy
(Barzel, 1989: Polyani, 1944; Hanna, 1990). Polanyi (1994, p. 35)
notes. "Enclosures have appropriately been called a revolution
of the rich against the poor. The lords and nobles were upsetting
the social order, breaking down ancient law and custom, sometimes
by means of violence, often by pressure and intimidation. They were
literally robbing the poor of their share in the common."
It would appear
little has changed over the course of history.
What assurance
will the Ministry of Fisheries give that New Zealand tuna fishers
will not see a repeat of the 'robbing of the poor' by the rich?
It is not the QMS in itself that is the problem it is those that
have used this system to their advantage at the expense of the less
informed that have caused the backlash. There is no trust that equity
and fairness will surround the allocation process.
If one delves
into the history it is disappointing that the implementation process
has been less than desirable. Is New Zealand in the process of compensating
one lot of injustice whilst creating another? As public awareness
about resource management increases perhaps the public of New Zealand
will challenge the 'management system' that introduced individual
rights over the commons. No doubt it will be too late, however relationships
with Governing bodies will be called into question.
Tuna NZ Inc
support coastal communities and their expanding involvement into
sustainable resource management benefiting their communities. We
support the devolution of governance to regions and see this as
the long overdue mechanism to lend legitimacy to community involvement
in resource management.
Others would
advocate allocation before this fundamental shift occurred.
Tuna NZ question
whether modification of the rights based system enabling coastal
communities to require a greater level of accountability of management
structures is a way to move forward. Such a model exists in the
Pacific involving communities utilising the full value of migratory
species recognizing the economic value to regions of commercial
and recreational fishing whilst placing value on a healthy marine
environment.
Summary
- The quota
management system in New Zealand is not seen as credible and legitimate
by participants in the tuna fishery. The challenge to the credibility
lies in the allocation process and historical interference and
manipulation that fishers have experienced when participating
in the allocation process of other fisheries.
- The political
driver to settle the Crowns Treaty obligations do not apply to
the tuna fishery. Maori have not been excluded from participating
in the tuna fishery, to this time the fishery retains its open
access status. Tuna NZ Inc fully support the Crowns obligation
to settle with Maori, however in this instance there is no basis
for Maori to force the issue especially if this has the potential
to undermine the long term management of the suite of migratory
species.
- Tuna and
associated highly migratory species globally are being managed
by controls on effort (restricting the numbers of participants
initially). It is doubtful if individual property rights will
ever apply widely, therefore it is misleading to issue property
rights to New Zealand fishers when there are no guarantees that
these allocations will hold fast under international scrutiny.
Using the Australian southern bluefin tuna fishery as an example
of introducing ITQ, it has created more problems than it solved
and once the rights have been issued in perpetuity it will be
difficult to determine compensation, or remove the expectation
of ownership.
- To introduce
the prospect of quota where it was not previously perceived as
suitable, introduces the mentality of a race to develop catch
history. This attitude in an open access fishery runs contradictory
to moderation in extraction activities. What signal are fishers
to act upon - the Fisheries Act and MFish promotional material
- or go for it - its all catch history. As a stakeholder group
who have promoted moderation we would not wish to disadvantage
our members but encourage them as the current rights holders to
compete with the precedent being set by several individual SeaFIC
Directors - purse seine to develop the largest catch history.
- Further dialogue
with the MFish and other 'rights holders' on matters raised in
this submission would assist to develop a credible process that
participants would be willing to participate in - we work to those
ends.
Distribution
List
Hon Pete Hodgson - Minister of Fisheries
Hon Doug Kidd
Hon Winston Peters - Tauranga
Damien O'Connor - West Coast Tasman
Jeanette Fitzsimons - Coromandel
Janet Mackey - East Coast
Te Ohu Kai Moana
Recreational Fishing Council
Big Game Fishing Council
Seafood Industry Council
Federation of Commercial Fishermen
Tuna Trollers Association
Tuna and Pelagic Ltd
|
