Shared Fisheries submission draft 5a
The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council Inc
SUBMISSION ON THE SHARED FISHERIES
DISCUSSION PAPER NOVEMBER 2006
February 28. 2007
1. The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council thanks the Minister of Fisheries for this opportunity to present our submission on the Shared Fisheries Discussion Paper to you.
THE COUNCIL AND ITS REPRESENTATION:
2. The New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council (NZRFC) represents national and regional associations, clubs, and corporate and individual members. Whilst a number of these have their own policies and will make separate submissions to you, we believe they will be consistent with this submission lodged by the overarching body, the NZRFC. However we acknowledge and respect that where their views are significantly different to this submission or in fact in conflict that these are their own views and as such may not be shared by our greater representation. This we respect.
3. The national organisations represented are N.Z. Angling & Casting Association, N.Z. Big Game Fishing Council, N.Z. Trailer Boat Federation, N.Z. Marine Transport Association, N.Z. Sports Industry Association and N.Z. Underwater Association. The regional associations cover much of the country and these are in the Bay of Plenty/Waikato, Taranaki, Wellington, Tasman Bay, and Otago Marine Fishers Assn. We also support the Ministry led and funded recreational forums of which many of these regional members are now members as individuals.
4. The Council also has some Maori groups as members with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu as a regional association. We also maintain a close contact with many of the tribes affiliated to Te Tai Tokerau in the north. While every effort has been made to consult we do not suggest that this submission is fully representative of their views.
5. Some of our larger member clubs include the members of the Bay of Islands Swordfish Club (1500) Buckland’s Beach Yacht Club (3000), Mercury Bay Ocean Sports Fishing Club (2200), Whakatane Sports Fishing Club (2500) Gisborne-Tatapouri Sports Fishing Club (2500) and Auckland’s Outboard Boating Club (1833). In addition it would be remiss of us not to include the valued representation of hundreds of small fishing and pub clubs who, while having small memberships, have no other representation.
6. The Council membership represented both directly and indirectly is in the vicinity of 300,000 recreational and sustenance amateur fishers. In addition by default we represent the public interest in the fishery and those amateur fishers who are non-members. We say by default because we are the only constituted representative body that has been recognised by Government and the Courts of doing so.
7. It further needs to be noted that most “Maori” fishers exercise rights under the Amateur Fishing Regulations (as distinct from Customary Regulations) and therefore our comments cover the many who fish for food under the Amateur Fishing Regulations and have no other chosen representation.
8. Over one million people, or by recent Ministry of Fisheries figures taken in any one survey period, they say that 20% of New Zealanders fish for sport or sustenance. This does not include those elderly or infirmed those amateur fishers who choose or can no longer actively participate in catching seafood for the table. The 1996 research to provide estimates of Recreational and Sustenance Harvest Estimates found that there are approximately 1.35 million and increasing recreational and sustenance amateur fishers in New Zealand and therefore we effectively, through our associated member groups, and or lack of any other democratically elected or statutory recognised group represent this number also.
9. We make this conservative claim, because we have a track history of representing and achieving benefits in amateur fishing of which all New Zealanders now enjoy. The recent regulation reviews is a clear case in point. In saying this we must advise that to date not one recreational or amateur fisher has argued against the benefits they now enjoy. We do however get many public complaints about what we are not doing and why is this or that allowed to happen. So we remain confident in our claim to represent the wider amateur fishing community.
10. The Council has been recognised in three court cases as representing the recreational and amateur fishers of New Zealand. The Council was attached to two of these cases without its prior knowledge and the court papers show it was ordered, “to represent the recreational fishing public of New Zealand”. The first of these was the order of attachment to the High Court Action on the Manukau, Taiapure application. The second relates to the SNA1 challenge of the Minister’s decision that was heard by the High Court. The Council also holds “Approved Party Status” for consultations with the Ministry of Fisheries and is recognised by them and the Minister of Fisheries as a stakeholder group. In the third case the Council, along with one of our respected affiliates the NZ Big Game Fishing Council, was the applicant in the recent kahawai case current awaiting the Court’s reserved decision.
11. The Council has a Board of elected officers and members. The Council consults with its members and the public using various means. These include newsletters, both written and electronic, its web site and various press releases. In addition it consults through the various fishing media and meetings it holds and receives input through those forums.
12. This submission has been prepared and presented after consultation via email and our web site to our members and board members.
13. As previously stated, we are aware that many of our National Affiliates and Regional Members are submitting their own submissions and in most cases we have seen and support these submissions where they are not in direct conflict with this submission’s intent or requested outcome. Clearly there will be some submissions representing the recreational fishing fraternity that we may not have seen and as such we can make no comment nor infer support.
14. In this submission we talk of both recreational and amateur fishers as these two descriptions are so intertwined. For the sake of some clarity, recreational fishers referred to are generally those who have an interest in supporting recreational fishing interests, while amateur refers to all fishers who exercise their rights to fish under the amateur fishing regulations.
15. As a further point of clarity, when we talk of commercial fishing vessels we refer to those vessels registered with the Ministry of Fisheries as fishing vessels able to catch quota or ACE. We do not include licensed recreational charter fishing vessels in this description.
BACKGROUND:
16. This submission will initially set out our concerns presently and historically. We have taken the liberty to provide as attachments those papers we believe to be relevant to these discussions.
17. In the release of the Shared Fisheries document, the Government has identified that New Zealand’s shared fisheries are fisheries that are shared between Maori customary, commercial, and recreational fishing interests, and include iconic species such as snapper, blue cod, kahawai, kingfish, rock lobster, paua and the deepwater species of hapuku/bass. Amateur fishers, also value many other species and we see no reason to preclude any species from this project.
18. Effective management of these fisheries is compromised by poor information on amateur catch, and uncertainty in the approach to allocate the available catch. This leads to risks in relation to ministerial decisions to ensure sustainability, and poor incentives for all fishing sectors to conserve, add value to, or cooperate to manage shared fisheries.
19. Since the quota management system was introduced 20 years ago we have seen further erosion of the public’s access to catch a reasonable share of the total allowable catch. In many cases this can be attributed to an over-allocation of key shared fish stocks to commercial in 1986 and the further over-allocation by the Quota Appeals Authority which followed. Records from this time demonstrate the Crown’s efforts to constrain the commercial catch at a sustainable level. It even paid compensation to reduce initial over allocations before the QAA had done its work in reallocating further unsustainable amounts to commercial fishers.
20. Maori were aggrieved to find out that they had lost rights to their fishery and so the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Claims Settlement Act was passed in 1992 to give full and final compensation to Maori.
21. Meanwhile the public’s share remained unaddressed. The National Policy for Marine Recreational Fisheries 1989 set out the foundations of how the public rights to an ongoing unimpeded share of our natural wild marine fisheries could and should be addressed. When formally released at 6pm Monday26th of June 1989, the Minister in its foreword gave what is now recognised widely as the “Moyle promise” where he stated “the Government’s position is clear, where a species of fish is not sufficiently abundant to support both commercial and non-commercial fishing, preference will be given to non commercial fishing”. This position reflects the Government’s resolve to ensure all New Zealanders can enjoy and benefit from our fisheries. This Council believes that this promise is sacrosanct and is in effect the “People’s Treaty” with the Crown as a promise to right the evolving wrongs when the quota management system was first introduced. It was this promise from the Labour Government that effectively separated the public recreational fishing community away from the early discussions with Maori over what became the treaty claim.
22. We must ask that after 20 years of QMS management, why is it we have so many problems within our shared fisheries. This submission will highlight some of the key concerns we have with over-allocation, mismanagement and lack of constraint by the commercial sector. These include, SNA3, SNA8 and FLT 1, the problems associated with waste from having a commercial minimum legal size, deeming and dumping, to just plain fish theft.
23. While catch information from the commercial sector is reasonably good, and efforts are being made to improve reporting on customary take by Iwi, many raise the concerns that there are no reporting or permitting requirements for the recreational sector. In saying this, there is some debate as to whether we need to know every fish taken by recreational fishers, or do we only need to measure trends in fishing and seasonal changes. Clearly this is a complex issue and one that needs to be addressed now to prevent the ongoing practices and past wrongs of over-fishing by commercial being accepted as the norm. We note that section 21 of the present Fisheries Act states:
24. “Matters to be taken into account in setting or varying any total allowable commercial catch – (1) In setting or varying any total allowable commercial catch for any quota management stock, the Minister shall have regard to the total allowable catch for that stock and shall allow for –
25. The following non-commercial fishing interests in that stock, namely –
(i)Maori customary non-commercial fishing interests; and
(ii)Recreational interests; and
(b)All other mortality to that stock caused by fishing.
Before setting or varying a total allowable commercial catch for any quota management stock, the Minister shall consult such persons and organisations as the Minister considers are representative of those classes of persons having an interest in this section, including Maori, environmental, commercial, and recreational interests.
After setting or varying any total allowable commercial catch under section 20 of this Act, the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, give to the parties consulted under subsection (2) of this section reasons in writing for his or her decision.
26. When allowing for Maori customary non-commercial interests under subsection of this section, the Minister shall take into account any Mataitai reserve in the relevant quota management area declared by the Minister by notice in the Gazette under regulations made for the purpose under sections 186 of this Act.
27. When allowing for recreational interests under subsection (1) of this section, the Minister shall take into account any regulations that prohibit or restrict fishing in any area for which regulations have been made following a recommendation made by the Minister under section 311 of the Act.”
28. The NZRFC acknowledges the difficulties faced by the Minister in setting this allowance, given the lack of specific information of what the amateur catch is. We believe that information as to what the actual amateur catch is in any given year will always be difficult to obtain. This means that setting any fixed or specific tonnage within which the amateur sector is constrained to will always be impossible to enforce.
29. For this reason the imprecision of the actual recreational catch is one good reason why strict proportionality would be nearly impossible to achieve. This in turn makes it difficult to imply any obligation to achieve it. Once one retreats from the proposition that strict proportionality is required, there can be no satisfactory solution other than that the Minister must act reasonably to seek to stop the saving resulting from TACC reductions being lost to recreational fishing. Tipping CA82/97
30. Any policy changes made from the shared fisheries project will need to keep in mind the variable nature of recreational catch.
Section 1
Introduction
31. The issues considered in this policy initiative are not new, and have been approached several times before without significant success. The Shared Fisheries Discussion Paper is the latest in a long line of similar papers developed over the years identifying gaps in our fisheries management and allocation framework. It recognises the difficulties surrounding the allocation or access to our fisheries by a diverse range of participants from extractors of the resource to those who only want to know that it is there. Within the extractive users, different management regimes are required to provide acceptable outcomes.
32. The many reports referred to include:
National Goals and Objectives for Recreational Fisheries 1983
Building On Progress (The Pearce Report)
National Policy for Marine Recreational Fisheries 1989.
Fisheries Legislation Review 1991
Sustainable Fisheries (The Wheeler Report)
Recreational Entitlements. (Jon G Sutinen Report 1996)
Soundings.
33. Those in decision-making roles will gain a better understanding of amateur fishers views and why they hold these views so strongly from reading these papers. Just as an example let’s look at priority access. In many of these papers priority access over commercial for the public has been consistently portrayed as a desirable policy outcome. Investigation and implementation of this has been consistently delayed while other users of our marine resources, rights have been strengthened. This issue surfaces again in the Shared Fisheries Discussion Paper and we seek a resolution to this.
34. There are a number of possible policy and legislative changes proposed within the Shared Fisheries Discussion Paper. Although the Shared Fisheries project offers opportunities to address some of the difficult issues confronting amateur fishers, opportunity also exists within the present Act and we would say that this has been a matter of interpretation rather than needing complex changes and question why this has not been done before today.
35. One might have expected that the Ministry would have dedicated part of the document to explaining why the provisions in the current Act are deficient. Unfortunately we can’t help but wonder whether the problem is not so much due to recreational fishers but rather with administrative systems within the Ministry.
36. The NZRFC is interested in seeing the policy changes needed to give effect to maintaining open access and improving management of our shared fisheries. We recognise there are others who have a legitimate right to our fishery resources, including Customary, Maori, Commercial and Non-extractive users. We agree there are many New Zealanders who must buy their fish rather than catch it and ask why is seafood so expensive. There is a view that seeking absolute priority allocation for the minority of New Zealanders who fish for a feed may be both unreasonable and unrealistic. However we do not accept that exporting our fish for profit should take priority over feeding our families and friends. This after all is one of the joys of living on an island group in the South Pacific. Nor do we accept that better defining the recreational allowance by the creation of a “fixed or proportional share” of the now available fish in a depleted fishery is an acceptable outcome.
Section 2
Getting better information on catch and value
37. We accept that good fisheries management is impossible without good information. New Zealand appears to have a poor record in acquiring and using amateur catch information and needs to do better. However within the commercial sector New Zealand is probably a world leader in gathering catch information.
38. To date there appears to have been no benefit accruing to the amateur sector for providing information. On the contrary, rather than having the apparently undeniable property rights issued to Commercial based on at times questionable catch history, results of amateur catch surveys have been largely ridiculed. Available information has been used by those wishing to protect their own commercial interests in various ways, suggesting during allowance discussions that amateur catch estimates are too high and therefore shouldn’t be fully allowed for, to arguing the exact opposite during TAC/TACC reviews. They contend that if the amateur catch is that high then any catch reductions ought to be spread evenly across all sectors thus reducing the impact on the TACC. It often appears these management discussions are more about property right protection than real fishery management.
39. We understand that the statutory responsibility for fisheries management in New Zealand falls on MFish and as such they are responsible for ensuring adequate information is gathered to make informed decisions. We would point out that given this submission is a public document and will be read by non-fishers and fishers alike, the problem of inadequate information cannot be blamed on recreational fishers. There have been numerous national and regional studies, and one point common to all surveys has been a strong support from the recreational fishing public to provide information.
40. We are somewhat confused as to the long-term role MFish sees for itself and the consequent flow-on effects for resource users. The long-term consequences of information gathered on, by, or for the amateur sector and the uses it may be put to are crucial to future outcomes for the wider recreational fishing sector.
41. We would reiterate at this time that the people of New Zealand since the first migrations have relied on the sea as a food basket to sustain themselves, and this is now seen as a fundamental right for all New Zealanders who choose to fish for seafood to feed their families. In saying this we acknowledge and it is accepted that Maori are significant harvesters of fish and shellfish taken under the Amateur regulations. In fact Sonny Tau, Chairman – Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi is quoted as saying “for 99.9%of the time when Ngapuhi go fishing to feed their babies they are now categorised as recreational fishers.”
42. The ability to exercise this right must remain paramount and not risk erosion by commercial pressure and over-harvesting to meet corporate balance sheets. We repeat that the recreational fishing fraternity who fish under the amateur regulations as prescribed both regionally and nationally that “we catch what we catch” and in effect in most fisheries the public is no longer able to catch what is recognised as a fair share or even a hint of the daily bag limit in most species.
43. Recognition of seasonal and climatic impacts must be taken into account when assessing the recreational harvest. Localised depletion caused by commercial bulk fishing methods also impacts on the recreational fishers ability to catch their share in the near shore area. All these considerations need to be taken into account when assessing trends and harvest levels for the amateur catch.
44. Given the depth and principle aim of the Policy document we would have expected that one of the principle objectives of the Ministry was ‘to provide an adequate catch for recreational fishers’. This basic objective remains unclear in the document and we seek to have this addressed.
45. MFish policy direction has altered on a regular basis over the years and it is difficult to predict future changes or what uses the information gathered may be put to. The present position appears to be one of using a Fish Plan process with MFish having the controlling position. This does appear to be something of a fallback position subsequent to the individual stakeholder plan idea and perhaps recognises the inequality of resources available to the different user groups. We are concerned about the possible financial implications on our sector resulting from Government policy changes and note the proposal for recreational fishing trusts later in the document.
46. For example a future policy change may result in the entire cost of information gathering to enable the recreational sector to participate in MFish management systems surrounding Fish Plans falling on user groups. Resultant financial pressure could be stifling for a group unable to sell its catch. We suggest Commercial interests would be looking for greater equality in cost sharing in this plan process, further placing MFish in a difficult position and forcing them to implement a cost recovery regime on recreational/amateur fishers. This would be an unacceptable outcome and one that any future fishing trust or foundation would need to be able to address with adequate funding.
47. While we support improved information gathering we believe this can be achieved without legislative changes to the Act. However the method needs to have acceptance within the working groups before vast amounts of money are spent only to find the information gathered fails the scrutiny of other stakeholders.
48. We want to see some real commitment from MFish and the Government surrounding the ongoing costs of collecting information and its uses. If MFish simply becomes a policy watchdog rather than a fisheries manager what will guarantee our place at the table?
49. Most of the desired outcomes from the Shared fisheries Discussion Paper rely on this information section. Bad information is going to lead to continued conflict between sectors as is continued uncertainty surrounding TAC’s. Urgency must be given to finding or developing more accurate information or allowances/allocations will continue to be disputed. It is unacceptable to the amateur fishing sector to have a share of the current TAC given as some form of property right given the poor state of some stocks and the lack of catch knowledge.
50. In many fish stocks amateur fishers just cannot catch the perceived allowance given by the Minister. For many in the commercial industry the uncertainty of this allowance is unacceptable while others treat it as a handy buffer to protect their commercial catches. This also has implications in determining values or can under-value the recreational right to fish and just how this is to be applied.
More survey and monitoring work
51. This, coupled with the poor information available on the actual catch by users other than commercial, continues to hold difficulties in both management and allocation decisions. Lack of information has made it impossible for those making allowances for catch between sectors to have the degree of certainty required to stand up in court. Consequently decisions tend to go in favour of those either supplying the information (catch history) or those most likely to engage the Crown in expensive litigation. This has created a climate where decisions granting priority to non-commercial users have been few and far between thus failing to give effect to the desired policy outcome referred to earlier.
52. Many non-commercial users believe the opposite is in operation with Commercial catches being protected at the expense of our own. In fact many recent decisions appear to have followed some type of proportional system where, when reduced extractions are needed to assist in fish stocks recovery, all users have had allowance reductions. This has occurred even when it is abundantly clear that the non-commercial sector has played little or no part in causing the initial stock depletion. The best (or worst) recent example of this can be found in the SNA8 fishery decisions where the commercial catch has exceeded the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) for many years.
53. Problems associated with deemed values and the ability for commercial fishers to go fishing knowing they are going to catch species for which they hold no quota is unacceptable to the public. To add injury to insult the catch taken over and above the TACC is like taking a loan from the bank (fish stock), but deeming only pays the interest and commercial fishers are not required to pay the capital back (rebuild the stock). SNA8 is a classic example.
54. The deeming problem is further compounded by the Ministry driven deemed values, in that they are now setting the benchmark for the ACE value in many key inshore species. We have it on good authority that many smaller commercial fishers cannot afford the ACE price nor the price of deeming to the Crown so the unwanted catch is stored until is can be disposed of during the hours of darkness. Illegal yes, but the Ministry has no ability to effect compliance and so this loss of fisheries resource remains unaccounted for and by default is lost in the public share.
55. Therefore we see a continuing erosion of the public’s rights and ability to catch a feed at risk. Refer to recreational fishers submission on deeming.
56. The fact that this excess “by-catch” is legal and apparently accepted by the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) even in a fishery that is scientifically shown, to be depleted is unacceptable. This points to either significant inadequacy in the present Fisheries Act or management failures to implement the Act as it stands. Appendix 1 (See SNA8 timeline, submission, advice papers and decision). The NZRFC rejects across the board proportional cuts and submits decisions on TAC changes should be borne by those responsible for the stock depletion.
Reporting for recreational charter operations
57. Concern has been expressed by various stakeholders about the need to monitor and control take from recreational charter vessels. Charter boat operators take people out fishing – their customers are amateur fishers. It is proposed that charter operators may be required to report catch and effort by their customers. This raises a number of issues pertaining to individual rights and privacy and the powers of search, something charter boat skippers should not have to contend with.
58. The NZRFC acknowledges that better information on recreational take should improve fisheries management decisions and see the collection of catch information from charter boats as one possibility. It is our view that the increase in charter boat and fishing guide activity has come about through non-boat owners’ public demand’s to improve their access to a diminishing inshore fishery.
59. We would strongly resist any move to apply quota to charter boats that take the public out fishing as those amateur fishers are already constrained by the Amateur Fisheries Regulations. Within the charter sector there is a suspicion that requirements for catch reporting signals an intention to introduce quota for the charter sector. This aspect will require some goodwill to rebuild bridges with this important section of the recreational fishing community.
60. To counter the concern that catch reporting is a precursor to quota allocation, the Government could provide an assurance that quota will not be introduced for charter operators, nor will they be required to pay resource levies.
61. There is already provision to collect catch data from the charter boat fleet in the Fisheries Act Section 189 (g) (h) but submit to keep an open transparency it would be better for the data to be collected by a body outside of the Ministry of Fisheries policy section. This could be the responsibility of the recreational or charter boat sector in association with the likes of FINZ, as information could be used to assist with submissions based on any future “values based “ system
Estimating relative values for commercial and amateur fishing
62. We have long contended the non-commercial fishing industry has been undervalued with many millions of dollars of economic activity created within New Zealand and overseas. It will require good policy analysis to support allowance/allocation decisions using these criteria and we appear to be working in something of an information vacuum.
63. The NZRFC is unsure just what is proposed by “a values based system”. Is the definition, “getting the best dollar return in overseas exchange for a measured tonnage of fish”? Other definitions could include, “getting the greatest dollar return in overall economic activity for a measured tonnage of fish,” or “Putting dollar values on pleasure and satisfaction derived from feeding friends and family as well as the more easily measured monetary values gained from economic activity associated with fishing.”
64. Estimation of relative value for commercial and recreational fishing will be difficult if you try to measure a dollar value against an intrinsic value of public utilisation.
65. We believe that much more work needs to be done on fleshing out the mechanisms of the proposals before the Ministry could expect the support of fishers. We do not subscribe to the debate that the Ministry doesn’t have the time to develop the detail given needs legislative timetable. The same argument was used in Soundings; This is the ‘last flight’ the last opportunity in the next decade or more to improve and sort out the public’s recreational rights. We note that when the industry finally voted their support for the QMS it was their confidence in the process that they voted on. In the case of the Shared Fisheries Policy most of the processes have not been explained in detail. We believe “the devil is in the detail” and “opening the books” on the detail is a critical step before recreational fishers can be asked to give their support.
66. This Council recognises this and is grappling with whether to approve a move now or wait.
67. In aiming to improve the value obtained from shared fisheries, several of the proposals in the document rely on being able to estimate the relative value of resource use by different sectors. Value includes commercial profit and economic activity associated with harvest from both the commercial and recreational/amateur sectors (such as employment, retail sales, and foreign exchange earnings from exports and tourism). Value also includes non-market values associated with the enjoyment and personal well being, healthy outdoor activity, relaxation of body or mind and satisfaction of going fishing for food or fun.
68. In saying this the value added community benefits ranging from the tackle retailer, bait sales, fuel and repairs and maintenance on private vessels and food, travel and accommodation all of which returns dollars into the local communities.
69. If we are to look at the values of the recreational catch report in 1999 we find the author noted 5 species of key value to recreational fishers.
Snapper, kingfish, blue cod, kahawai, rock lobster.
So let’s take a simple comparison from the report:
• Commercial value of fish caught by amateurs: $26,149,027
• Value of recreational fishing $219,616,298
• Value of money spent fishing $973,470,572