1. sports
2. fishing

Review of Regulatory Measures and Other Management
Controls for 1 June 2009
Initial Position Paper
8 September 2008
1
CONTENTS
CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3
exemption to minimum net mesh Size for the taking of fish Species found in fresh water – Initial
Position Paper ............................................................................................................................ 5
Regulatory Impact Statement – Exception to minimum net mesh for taking of fish species.. 24
Species codes for reporting Commercial Catch – initial position paper ................................. 27
Regulatory Impact Statement - species codes for reporting commercial catch....................... 44
Review of Observer services fees – initial position paper....................................................... 47
Appendix 1 - Statutory Considerations ................................................................................... 56
Appendix 2 – risk- based approach to observer coverage ....................................................... 57
Appendix 3 – proposed fee structure....................................................................................... 61
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT - Review of Observer Services Fees................... 62
Correction of Coordinates and description errors in southland & sub-antarctic area regulations
................................................................................................................................................. 64
Review of potting definitions - initial position paper.............................................................. 73
Appendix 1 - Regulations relating to use and possession of non-rock lobster pots ................ 94
appendix 2 – impacts of proposed options on affected fish stocks ......................................... 96
Regulatory Impact Statement - Review of potting definitions .............................................. 100
Initial position paper – Marine Recreational fishing charter Vessel registration and reporting103
Marine Recreational fishing charter Vessel registration and reporting – Regulatory Impact
Statement ............................................................................................................................... 117
2
INTRODUCTION
1
This Initial Position Paper (IPP) provides you with the Ministry of Fisheries’ (MFish)
initial position on management controls that MFish is reviewing for 1 June 2009.
2
This IPP has been developed for the purpose of consultation as required under the
Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act). MFish emphasises the views and recommendations
outlined in each paper are preliminary and are provided as a basis for consultation
with stakeholders.
3
Each paper has regard to the legal obligations required under the Act. MFish does not
intend to use the IPP, and the consideration of proposals contained within it, to debate
in full its generic statutory interpretations. The section of the IPP that discusses
generic statutory interpretations should guide the reader when interpreting each of the
individual papers.
4
Initial positions in each paper consider recent research, analysis of commercial and
non-commercial catch data, and any other relevant information.
5
The individual papers within the IPP present and analyse information with the aim of
focusing each paper on fisheries management outcomes. In particular, the body of the
advice places an emphasis on analysis and application of the facts to the issues that
need to be addressed. Most technical information has been attached as an Appendix
to each paper.
6
In November 2008, MFish will compile the Final Advice Paper. This document will
summarise MFish and stakeholder views on those issues being reviewed, and will
provide final advice and recommendations for each issue. A copy of the Final Advice
Paper and subsequently the Minister’s letter setting out his final decisions will be
posted on the MFish website as soon as it becomes available and hard copies will be
available on request.
Deadline for Submissions
7
All written submissions on this consultation document must be received by MFish by
Wednesday, 22 October 2008. If you intend to make a submission but need an
extension of time, please contact:
Tracey Steel,
Ph (04) 819 4548
Late submissions may not be able to be considered for the Final Advice Paper.
8
Written submissions should be sent directly to:
Tracey Steel,
Executive Assistant,
Ministry of Fisheries,
P O Box 1020,
Wellington;
3
or faxed to 04 819 4208
or emailed to tracey.steel@fish.govt.nz
9
All submissions are subject to the Official Information Act 1982 and can be released,
if requested, under the Act. If you have specific reasons for wanting to have your
submission withheld, please set out your reasons in the submission. MFish will
consider those reasons when making any assessment for the release of submissions if
requested under the Official Information Act 1982.
4
EXEMPTION TO MINIMUM NET MESH SIZE FOR THE
TAKING OF FISH SPECIES FOUND IN FRESH WATER –
INITIAL POSITION PAPER
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) proposes to:
a)
amend regulation 6 of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986
(Amateur Regulations) to provide that no minimum net mesh size is specified
for the taking of particular finfish 1 found principally in the freshwater
environment (100 mm for ‘all other species (excluding quinnat salmon)’
currently applies);
b)
amend regulation 31 of the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001
(Commercial Regulations) to provide that no minimum net mesh size is
specified for the taking of particular finfish1 found principally in the
freshwater environment (100 mm for ‘all other species’ currently applies).
2
The minimum net mesh size has been prescribed for certain species with the intent
that juvenile fish could avoid capture. As a general approach, a minimum net mesh
size of 100 mm for all non-specified fish species was adopted for both recreational
and commercial fishers. Only a few species of fish found principally in freshwater
had specific net mesh minima specified (e.g., eel species, koi and brown bullhead
catfish).
3
At the time the current regulations were introduced, the minimum net mesh
specification for all other fish species (ie, 100 mm) recognised that most netting
activities were generally carried out in the marine environment. The general
specification recognised that the use of finer net mesh may result in the undesirable
capture of the juvenile lifestages of popular marine species. However, the current
general minimum net mesh sizes do not adequately recognise that fine mesh nets can
enable people to take several fish species found principally in freshwater. These fish
species are generally of a smaller size at maturity. The 100 mm minimum net mesh
size unnecessarily limits the range of methods that can be used to effectively catch
such fish species.
4
The use of a fine meshed net is not typically intended to entangle or ensnare the fish,
but to surround the catch, in the same way as a fish trap. Fish traps are not
encompassed by the definition of a net, and therefore can be used presently without
reference to minimum net mesh specifications.
5
The level of existing and predicted commercial and recreational use of fish species
found principally in freshwater is relatively low. Similarly, the taking of fish species
for customary Maori purposes (e.g., hui, tangi) is considered low. Sustainability
concerns are not expected to arise where more netting methods appropriate to the fish
1
As set out in Option 2 of this paper.
5
species in question are made available. There are other tools in the Fisheries Act 1996
(the Act) that can be applied to ensure sustainability, but they are unlikely to be
required as a consequence of the proposals in this paper.
6
7
It is proposed to broaden the range of fish species where an exemption from the 100
mm minimum net mesh specification is provided. A general exemption is not
proposed. The factors taken into account in nominating species for the exemption
include:
a)
the relative size of the fish species in question;
b)
the likelihood of catching the species in associated fisheries;
c)
whether the species is found in adjacent estuarine and marine environments;
d)
the effectiveness of other fishing methods used to take the species (e.g., fish
traps);
e)
whether there is interest in harvesting the species by one or more sectors;
f)
whether the harvest of the species may contribute a threat to its sustainability
or alternatively its recovery;
g)
whether the harvest of the species may be beneficial to the aquatic
environment; and,
h)
any particular legal status of the species (e.g., sports fish 2)
Regulations for the purpose of specifying how or what fishing methods are used to
take aquatic life may be made under the general regulation making powers of the Act.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
8
This Initial Position Paper (IPP) required a Regulatory Impact Statement which was
reviewed internally by MFish.
9
For more information on the Regulatory Impact Analysis requirements and the
meaning of the word ‘significant’ with reference to an IPP, please refer to the
Ministry of Economic Development website, www.med.govt.nz.
The Issue
10
MFish considers that the current restrictions on set net mesh size are not suitable for
the utilisation, as appropriate, of many freshwater fish species. In general, the
practice of netting as a fishing method has focused on popular fish species of a
reasonably large size found in the marine or estuarine environment. Minimum net
mesh requirements are specified for people who wish to fish for such species using a
net.
11
The minimum net mesh size for the taking of finfish with a net is set out in:
2
Species of freshwater fish may be declared sports fish. Schedule 1 of the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations
1983 lists sports fish as trout and salmon species, rudd (Auckland Acclimatisation District only), tench, and
perch.
6
a)
regulation 6 of the Amateur Regulations; and,
b)
regulation 31 of the Commercial Regulations 3.
12
The net mesh minimum specified for the amateur fishing of fish species within the ‘all
others (excluding quinnat salmon)’ category is 100 mm, whereas for commercial
fishing it is 100 mm in the ‘all others’ category. In addition, regulation 3B of the
Fisheries (South-East Area Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986 (South-East Area
Commercial Regulations) provides that Stokell’s smelt 4 may be taken from the
eastern South Island using a whitebait net 5.
13
The minimum net mesh size for ‘all other’ fish species was set at a time when the
predominant species of harvest interest were found in the marine environment.
Further, individual measures were prescribed in regulation for popular species of
harvest interest (e.g., eels, grey mullet). The minimum net mesh specification for ‘all
other’ fish species allows for the escape of smaller sized fish to varying degrees
depending on the maximum size attained. As a result, smaller fish would generally
reach a size where they would breed before being able to be taken.
14
The minimum net mesh specification for ‘all other’ fish species may have been
appropriate for popular fish species taken in past decades. However, its application to
a range of other fish species of harvest interest in freshwater environments needs to be
more closely assessed. The methods of fishing for these fish species, of generally a
small size, are presently limited by the current regulatory provisions.
15
The main issue for commercial fishers is the bycatch of other fish species taken when
fishing for eels, catfish or koi. Commercial eel fishers use fine meshed nets, and no
minimum net mesh size applies when taking eels 6. Commercial fishers taking catfish
and koi may use a fyke net with a minimum net mesh size of 12 mm, but for other
forms of net the minimum net mesh size reverts to 100 mm.
16
Where a commercial fisher is fishing for eels, catfish or koi using fine meshed nets, it
is possible that other species might be caught as bycatch, some of which may be
subject to the quota management system (QMS). Examples of QMS species found in
freshwater and estuarine environments include flatfish, grey mullet, and yellow-eyed
mullet. Even though an illegal mesh size was used in the capture of QMS species,
such catch must be landed and counted against Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) for
the particular fish stock (unless such catch may be returned to the water alive in
accordance with the Sixth Schedule to the Act). This ensures that the catch of any
quota fish stock is undertaken within the sustainable limit determined for each stock.
17
In contrast, where a commercial fisher is fishing for eels, catfish or koi using fine
meshed nets, the bycatch of non-QMS fish species (e.g., common bully) must be
released and appropriate reporting undertaken. However, these same bycatch species
3
See Appendix to view the relevant amateur and commercial regulations noted.
Stokell’s smelt is not a ‘whitebait’ species.
5
A whitebait net is defined in the Whitebait Fishing Regulations 1994 and the Whitebait Fishing (West Coast)
Regulations 1994. Net mesh is not prescribed in the definition.
6
Commercial eel fishers are required to have two escapement tubes inserted in their fyke nets to allow small
fish to escape.
4
7
may be retained if a ‘fish trap’ is used (other than sports fish etc). A fish trap is not
encompassed by the legal definition of a net.
18
The current minimum net mesh specification for most fish species (i.e., 100 mm)
creates a high likelihood that offences against provisions of the Act would be
committed, when using a net to take eels, catfish or koi. MFish suggests that the
present broad coverage of the minimum net mesh specification for ‘all other’ fish
species may not allow for the appropriate use of other fish species when netting
methods are used.
19
Further, commercial fishers in the upper North Island have recently commenced some
small scale target fishing of ‘other’ fish species found in freshwater. These operations
are presently confined to the use of fish traps (e.g., G-minnow traps), rather than nets.
These interests have expressed an interest in being able to use some small scale
netting methods (e.g., dip nets) that might be more appropriate than trapping methods
for some species found in freshwater. Sometimes more active fishing methods are
required to catch fish more effectively when compared to passive trapping techniques.
The present regulatory provision for net mesh size does not provide this opportunity.
20
For customary fishing, the main issue for most tangata whenua is that, currently, a
kaitiaki will need to provide an authorisation to anyone wishing to use a fine meshed
net to catch the relevant species. This will involve some additional administrative
work. This may or may not be considered the best use of their time given that several
of the fish species can be fished using fish traps that do not require a specific
customary authorisation.
Summary of Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
21
Retaining the current management settings will mean that both recreational and
commercial fishers will not be able to take small sized fish species found principally
in the freshwater environment with a net having a net mesh of less than 100 mm.
Both sectors may continue to use fish traps, typically having a weave of less than
100 mm, which are not legally encompassed by the definition of a net.
Option 2 – Specifying species of fish where minimum net mesh size
does not apply
22
MFish considers that an amendment to Regulation 6 of the Amateur Regulations and
regulation 31 of the Commercial Regulations is appropriate. The amendments would
enable the use of a net with a minimum net mesh size of less than 100 mm, for
specified species of fish found in freshwater. Specifically, for the relevant species
noted in the table that follows, it is proposed to allow a net to be used of any mesh
size. This will broaden the methods available for both recreational and commercial
fishing of the listed species.
23
One aspect of the proposed amendment would be to revoke regulation 31(3) of the
Commercial Regulations. This provision only allows commercial fishers to take
catfish and koi by a fyke net with a minimum net mesh of 12 mm when using a fyke
8
net. The proposal in this paper is to allow commercial fishers to take catfish and koi
with a net, including a fyke net, without any minimum net mesh size prescribed.
List of proposed fish species where exemption to 100 mm minimum net mesh
requirement could be provided
Common name
(other common
name)
Scientific Name
Application to
commercial
sector 7
Application to
recreational
sector
Alpine galaxias
Galaxias
paucispondylus
9
9
Banded kokopu
Galaxias fasciatus
9
9
Black mudfish
Neochanna diversus
9
9
Bluegill bully
Gobiomorphus hubbsi
9
9
Brown bullhead
catfish
Ameiurus nebulosus
9
98
Brown mudfish
Neochanna apoda
9
9
Canterbury galaxias
Galaxias vulgaris
9
9
Common bully
Gobiomorphus
cotidianus
9
9
Common smelt
Retropinna retropinna
9
9
Cran’s bully
Gobiomorphus basalis
9
9
Dune lakes galaxias
Galaxias gracilis
9
9
Dwarf galaxias
Galaxias divergens
9
9
Estuary stargazer
Leptoscopus
macropygus
9
9
Estuarine triplefin
(Cockabully)
Grahamina nigripenne
9
9
Giant bully
Gobiomorphus
gobioides
9
9
Giant kokopu
Galaxias argenteus
9
9
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
9
9
Grass carp 9
Ctenopharyngodon
idella
9
9
Inanga
Galxias maculatus
9
9
7
Inclusion in this column does not automatically imply that commercial interests can target the species in
question. However, commercial fishers may then be able to legally take the species as a bycatch (other than
those where it is otherwise prohibited or further restricted by other legislation (eg, sportsfish).
8
Only commercial fishers may presently take catfish and koi using a fyke net with 12 mm minimum net mesh
size. The provision does not extend to recreational fishers at present.
9
A person currently requires the approval of the Minister of Conservation to possess live grass carp or live
silver carp under s 26ZQA of the Conservation Act 1987.
9
Koaro
Galaxias brevipinnis
9
9
Koi
Cyprinus carpio
9
9 10
Lamprey
Geotria australis
9
9
Otago roundhead
galaxias
(Roundhead
galaxias)
Galaxias anomalus
9
9
Quinnat salmon
(Chinook salmon)
Oncorhynchus
tshawyscha
9
9
Redfin bully
Gobiomorphus huttoni
9
9
11
Scardinius
erythrophthalmus
9
9
Sailfin molly
Peocilia latipinna
9
9
Short-jawed kokopu
Galaxias postvectis
9
9
Silver carp
Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix
9
9
Stokell’s smelt
Stokellia anisodon
9 12
9
Torrentfish
Cheimarrichthys fosteri
9
9
Upland bully
Gobiomorphus
breviceps
9
9
Upland longjaw
galaxias (Longjaw
galaxias)
Galaxias prognathus
9
9
Rudd
Rationale for Management Options
Recreational fishing
24
A ‘net’ is defined in the Amateur Regulations to mean ‘any net or part of a net used or
capable of being used to take fish; but does not include a bob, ring pot, or whitebait
net’.
25
Recreational fishers have historically taken particular fish species found in freshwater
as part of an aquarium and conservation hobby, as well as for food. This group of
recreational fishers use various forms of nets, such as dip nets or hand nets, which are
made of fine net mesh of typically 1 or 2 mm. The net acts to encircle the fish, rather
than ensnare or entangle, in order to take the fish in a live state. Recreational fishers
are limited to hand retrieval of nets.
10
Only commercial fishers may presently take catfish and koi using a fyke net with 12 mm minimum net mesh
size. The provision does not extend to recreational fishers at present.
11
Rudd is a sports fish within the Auckland/Waikato Fish and Game area, but elsewhere it is a noxious species,
as declared under the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983.
12
Regulation 3B of the South-East Area Commercial Regulations already provides an authority to take Stokell’s
smelt commercially when using a ‘whitebait net’, which is not included within the definition of ‘net’ under
fisheries legislation.
10
26
The use of appropriate fishing methods to capture some freshwater fish species should
be provided for within the regulatory framework. Some recreational netting methods
used in the freshwater differ from those used in the estuarine or marine environment.
This reflects the different species available for capture and the physical environment
where fishing is being undertaken. Recreational fishers also use fish trapping
methods such as G minnow traps or hinaki. The 100 mm net mesh minima does not
apply to use of a fish trap.
Commercial fishing
27
A ‘net’ is defined in the Commercial Regulations to mean ‘a net or part of a net used,
or capable of being used, to take fish; but does not include a whitebait net’.
28
Commercial fishers take a range of fish species found in freshwater. Historically this
has been for fisheries for principally eels, catfish and koi. More recently, a range of
fish species targeted have not been typically taken before. The market for the latter
group of species is the ornamental fish trade, fish farming, and breeding programmes
for enhancement programmes (e.g., following habitat disturbance such as roadworks).
29
Since October 2004 commercial fishers have been able to use nets to take eels without
a minimum net mesh size (previously a 12 mm minimum was in place). Some
liberalisation of net mesh size was provided in order to reduce net marking on the
nose and tail of eels taken for live sale. The assessment at the time noted that few
other indigenous species were caught in association with eels. Furthermore, the tubes
within fyke nets provided an opportunity for smaller fish, typically the indigenous
species, to escape before the net was checked by the fisher. The current net mesh
minima specified for catfish and koi is 12 mm when using a fyke net.
30
In general, the bycatch of non-QMS fish species other than eels, catfish and koi, is
unable to be retained for landing. This is because such catch is taken with a net mesh
of less than 100 mm. However, it may be reasonable to allow commercial fishers to
take fish species using a broader range of net fishing methods in certain
circumstances.
31
In addressing a comparable issue with the application of the 100 mm minimum net
mesh size, an exemption was provided for certain species of pelagic fish when purse
seine and lampara netting methods were used. The exemption is set out in regulation
31(2) of the Commercial Regulations. Purse seine or lampara nets are not designed to
entangle or ensnare, but act to surround fish. The species involved in the earlier
regulatory exemption are albacore, anchovy, blue mackerel, jack mackerel, garfish,
kahawai, koheru, pilchard, saury, skipjack tuna, trevally, or yellowfin tuna.
32
In a similar way, it is proposed to exempt specified fish species found in freshwater
from the general requirement to use nets with 100 mm minimum mesh. The
exemption recognises that most commercial fishing operations for a broader range of
fish species found in freshwater are unlikely to involve entangling or enmeshing of
the catch, and that the species involved are typically of a smaller size.
33
MFish does not consider that providing this kind of exemption would lead to the use
of inappropriate fishing methods in the freshwater environment. Regulation 63 of the
11
Commercial Regulations currently prohibits commercial fishers from using in rivers,
streams, lakes, lagoons, or estuaries, the following fishing methods: Danish seine nets,
trawl nets, box or teichi nets, trammel nets, purse seine nets, or lampara nets.
Proposed approach to enable use of smaller net mesh minima
34
Fishing in the freshwater environment is physically constrained by characteristics
such as depth, water flow, and channel width etc. Fishers will in most instances
choose netting methods appropriate to the species in question. Similarly, fishers will
consider how selective the methods proposed for use are, and consider the
effectiveness of that method in the habitat of the particular species of interest. MFish
does not propose to qualify the exemption further to the use of particular netting
methods for the species in question. Regulatory measures already prohibit several
large scale netting methods from use in most freshwater environments.
35
MFish proposes that the exemption would apply to the same fish species for both
recreational and commercial fishers. The scope of the species considered for the
exemption is reasonably broad. However, a general exemption for all fish species
found in freshwater is not appropriate having considered the differing approaches to
the management of some species. Further, the range of some species extends into
marine waters (where other net mesh minima apply), and the boundary between these
saline environments is not always clear.
36
The factors taken into account in nominating species for the exemption include:
a)
the relative size of the fish species;
b)
the likelihood of catching the species in associated fisheries;
c)
whether the species is found in adjacent estuarine and marine environments;
d)
the effectiveness of other fishing methods able to be used to take the species
(e.g., fish traps);
e)
whether there is interest in harvesting the species for a broad range of potential
outcomes (e.g., pest management, enhancement programmes) by one or more
fishery sectors;
f)
whether the harvest of the species using a further fishing method may
contribute either a threat to its sustainability or alternatively its recovery;
g)
whether the harvest of the species may be beneficial to the aquatic
environment; and,
h)
any particular legal status of the species (e.g., sports fish).
Implementation steps
37
Regulations to prescribe how or what fishing methods may be used to take aquatic life
may be made under the general regulation making power of the Act (ie, section
297(1)(a)). Should the Minister of Fisheries (the Minister) agree to amend any
regulatory measures to exempt recreational and commercial fishers from using a net
with a minimum net mesh of 100 mm for specified fish species, any such changes
would be scheduled for implementation by June 2009. Affected parties would be
notified through existing pathways including the external MFish website, or in the
case of specialist interests, through other known avenues (e.g., club magazines).
12
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
Recreational use
38
39
Recreational fishers, including aquarium hobbyists, will continue to be legally
constrained to the use of traps, and there may be on-going illegal use of fine meshed
nets, when undertaking fishing activities. Fish species taken as a bycatch need to be
returned to the water 13 when either:
a)
using a net for eels (no minimum net mesh applies); or,
b)
using fyke nets of no less than 12 mm, when taking catfish and koi.
Where the status quo is maintained, MFish’s enforcement strategy would involve
increasing relationships with the affected fishing interests and ensuring that they are
aware of the existing regulatory measures for net mesh when taking various species.
Commercial use
40
The primary legislative requirement (section 72 of the Act) for a commercial fisher is
to generally retain fish managed under the QMS (of a legal size etc). Unless listed on
the Sixth Schedule to the Act, any such catch of quota species needs to be landed and
counted against ACE. At this time, only a few species found in freshwater are
managed within the QMS, but further introductions are conceivable to ensure
sustainable use over the longer term.
41
Commercial fishers taking non-QMS fish species found in freshwater would continue
to return such catch to the water, where they were taken with an illegal net mesh. The
taking of fish using illegal methods constitutes an offence against the Act. Some
commercial fishing operations using a fine meshed net may find it difficult to actively
avoid the capture of some bycatch species.
42
Commercial fishers will still be required to return any quinnat salmon to the water,
even if an exemption from the 100 mm net mesh size specified under fisheries
legislation was applied. This is on the basis that a person may not possess a sports
fish without the relevant authority14. Maintaining the ability for commercial fishers to
take quinnat salmon without any reference to a minimum net mesh size will enable
them to avoid committing an offence specifically under fisheries legislation.
43
Commercial fishers wishing to target the broader range of fish species found in
freshwater under the status quo management settings would only be able to do this
effectively using fishing methods such as fish traps. This may suffice in terms of the
ability of these methods to catch such species.
13
Regulation 28 of the Amateur Regulations provides that persons undertaking amateur fishing shall
immediately return aquatic life that is unlawfully taken into the waters from which it was taken.
14
Section 26ZI of the Conservation Act 1987.
13
Customary use
44
A person wishing to take many of the nominated species for a customary purpose
using a fine meshed net (eg, hui, tangi) would continue to need an authorisation from
a kaitiaki under the legislative framework for customary fishing. Alternatively, they
may continue to use other fishing methods that would not require a specific
authorisation.
Costs
45
Recreational and commercial interests would not be able to legally use a range of
fishing methods that may be considered reasonable for the capture of the fish species
in question. If the status quo is maintained, recreational interests taking these species
as a bycatch in netting operations would need to return any unlawfully taken fish.
46
Commercial interests would not be able to maximise the economic return of bycatch
taken when fishing for species such as eel, catfish or koi, and may be limited to
certain fishing methods when targeting a range of other species.
47
A kaitiaki would continue to issue authorisations for the use of otherwise illegal fine
meshed nets when customary fishing activities were proposed.
Benefits
48
Limiting the legal methods of fishing made available for recreational use may be
appropriate. MFish does not envisage that the existing use of such fisheries resources
will materially change. The existing fishing methods may suffice in meeting
utilisation outcomes for the fish species in question. Further, the potential risks
associated with this approach are not considered to be of consequence. Fishers may
still successfully catch a reasonable range of fish species using trapping methods,
although additional time and effort may be required.
49
Commercial fishing of most species of aquatic life is undertaken under the authority
of a fishing permit 15. Other statutory measures are then provided by the Act and its
associated regulations that set out how that species is able to be used. The existing
restrictions on fishing methods may indirectly restrict the level of use. Such
limitations may be reasonable while more appropriate management settings are
considered to directly address sustainable use (e.g., QMS introduction). In the case of
target fishing, the use of trapping methods may meet the immediate utilisation needs
of commercial fishers.
15
For example, some species may not be taken on a commercial basis given other legislative provisions e.g.,
sports fish, or may be commercially taken through the application of other regulations e.g., whitebait.
14
Option 2 – Specifying species of fish where minimum net mesh size
does not apply – MFish Preferred Option
Impact
General outcomes
50
Providing an ability to use fine meshed nets for the taking of small sized fish species
found in freshwater will enable recreational and commercial fishers to achieve
outcomes consistent with providing for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.
The use of particular netting methods may be more effective and efficient in certain
circumstances, and provide some further flexibility in enabling fishing opportunities.
51
At present, the unintentional or intentional taking of other fish species using a net with
less than 100 mm is an offence against the Act. Providing an exemption for a range of
fish species found in freshwater from this requirement will better focus the policy
objective of this measure on its application to generally fish species of a larger size,
and those typically found in the marine environment. Accordingly, the level of noncompliance with the current regulations is expected to decrease.
52
An increased range of bycatch species taken will be able to be retained and used, or
legally discarded as part of a fisher’s obligations under other provisions of fisheries
legislation. Similarly, both recreational and commercial fishers will be able to use a
wider range of fishing methods to catch the species of interest. There are other
fisheries regulations already in place that limit the use of inappropriate fishing
methods by either sector in the freshwater environment.
53
In the case of fishing for customary purposes, a kaitiaki will not need to write out
authorisations for the use of fine meshed nets which might otherwise be seen as an
administrative burden when fish traps can be used for the same species.
54
Fishery interests are invited to provide relevant information on the fish species
considered for exemption from the minimum net mesh size restriction.
Sustainability considerations
55
MFish does not foresee any sustainability issues arising from the use of nets for the
species considered in this paper. The current use of these species is not considered a
risk. The quantity taken is usually small in the case of those species typically held in
aquaria. The possible use of netting methods using fine mesh nets is unlikely to
significantly increase the overall capture of the species considered in this paper.
56
The number of people with an interest in most of the species listed in the Table is
small, and any such fishing effort is unlikely to be concentrated around any one area.
Not all parts of a species range are typically accessible to fishers given that access to
most waterways is not easily achieved (eg, private land). Nevertheless, having a
wider range of netting methods available should assist use strategies to reduce those
introduced species considered undesirable.
57
Facilitating the use of some of the listed species may contribute to recovery
programmes and enhancement ventures. Commercial interests have expressed an
interest in breeding particular indigenous fish species taken that are considered
15
uncommon. The capture of these species is possible at present where legal methods
are used (eg, fish traps).
Utilisation considerations
58
Commercial access to target most of the species encompassed by the review has been
limited in the years 1992 through to 2004 as a result of a moratorium on the issue of
fishing permits for non-QMS species. The permitting moratorium preventing the
targeting of lamprey in the South Island continues to apply, in recognition of the noncommercial values of this fish species by Ngai Tahu 16. More generally, the specific
tools provided by fisheries legislation can be readily applied to most other species to
ensure sustainability as required. Little interest in the commercial use of the fish
species found principally in freshwater has been shown since 2004. Recent interest
has been expressed in the upper North Island.
59
MFish does not envisage that the potential increased use of netting methods will result
in increased catch of grey mullet, yellow eyed mullet, sports fish, or whitebait. Any
increased catch of grey mullet and yellow eyed mullet or other such species managed
under the QMS would be constrained by the need to balance such catch against the
catch limits set for the relevant stock. Furthermore, these species or species lifestages are largely taken in the lower reaches of rivers and lagoons, and the level of
existing interaction between fishers targeting the proposed exempted species and these
latter species is unlikely to change as a result of this proposal.
Species declared sports fish, and whitebait
60
Fishers would be required to return sports fish given provisions in other legislation
that directly relate to the management of such species. Amateur fishing of sports fish
species is undertaken in accordance with a licence issued under regulations deemed to
have been made under conservation legislation. Under conservation legislation, a
person may not take sports fish without a licence. Further, the commercial use of
sports fish is limited to the sale of sports fish between Fish and Game Councils, or
between a Fish and Game Council and the Crown, following the rearing of such fish
at hatcheries.
61
The current definition of ‘net’ under both recreational and commercial regulations
administered under fisheries legislation does not encompass whitebait nets.
Accordingly, any changes affecting the use of a ‘net’ are unlikely to affect the use of a
‘whitebait net’.
62
Stokell’s smelt is included in the proposed list of species where an exemption should
be provided from the use of 100 mm net mesh. Regulation 3B of the South-East Area
Commercial Regulations 1986 provides that it is lawful to take Stokell’s smelt from
the eastern South Island (i.e., quota management area 3) when using a whitebait net.
However, the ability to take Stokell’s smelt similarly needs to apply to other types of
net, as defined by fisheries legislation. The ability to take any catch of Stokell’s smelt
using a net should also be reflected in the provisions applicable to recreational fishers.
16
Section 306 of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.
16
Customary values
63
The Minister of Fisheries has a number of Fisheries Protocols with iwi who have
Treaty settlements with the Crown. The protocols generally recognise that aquatic life
within the Protocol areas are considered taonga to the iwi concerned. Some of these
expressions of special association between iwi and taonga species are also recognised
in settlement legislation. The protocols and/or legislative provisions for such species
generally set out how the Minister should be satisfied that customary non-commercial
interests are not adversely affected when these species are used, while recognising the
association of the iwi with the taonga concerned.
64
Lamprey is the only fish species specifically identified in both protocols and/or
legislative provisions for some iwi, and the table for the current proposal. The
proposed regulatory change to enable the use of fine meshed nets to take lamprey is
unlikely to affect the customary non-commercial interests of the relevant iwi.
Legislative provisions prevent the targeting of lamprey on a commercial basis in many
areas. The recreational use of this species is generally low, and is unlikely to change
in future.
65
Amending the Amateur and Commercial Regulations as proposed will not have a
bearing on the use of the Te Arawa Lakes (Fisheries) Regulations 2006 once
implemented. These latter regulations stem from the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act
2006, and reflect the specific recognition of fishing rights held by Te Arawa. Once
these specific regulations are implemented, any customary and recreational fishing
activities within the Te Arawa Lakes area for included species administered under
fisheries legislation can only be done in accordance with the authority provided by the
provisions of the regulations. Commercial fishing within the waters of the Te Arawa
lakes is initially prohibited.
66
Similarly, the proposed amendments will not affect the application of the Lake Taupo
Fishery Regulations 2004, as they relate to the fishing of most indigenous species by
people of Tuwharetoa descent. It would however affect non-indigenous species of
fisheries resources administered under fisheries legislation (e.g. brown bullhead
catfish, goldfish).
Costs
Compliance and Information
67
Recreational and commercial fishers will need to be advised of the exemptions to the
net mesh minima applying to the affected species. This is most effectively done by
updating brochures and MFish website information, as well as through articles in
specialist magazines. These updates or production of sector group articles are
undertaken periodically, and will not involve additional or significant cost. In
addition, key commercial interests can be advised through Commercial Stakeholder
Organisations, while other forums can be used to note any changes made.
68
Potential costs include the need to better assess the nature and extent of customary,
recreational and commercial use of fish species found in freshwater. Some
assessment of the use of these fisheries resources will be required over the longer
term, irrespective of the current management measures in place. In the initial time
17
period, some of the resource assessments may be qualitative in nature, working in
cooperation with fishery interests, and may include analysis of information obtained
from various sources. As the proposal largely recognises existing levels of use,
additional resource assessments are probably unjustified in the short term.
Future reviews
69
Over time, the proposed exemption for small sized fish species found in freshwater
may need to be amended to include additional fish species that are taken, depending
on what might be considered to be the most appropriate means to allow for the use of
such species. The list of fish species in this paper includes those species currently
being fished as well as those expected to be fished in the short to medium term.
70
The aim of the present proposal is to better recognise in fisheries regulations that
certain fishing methods are used for particular species found in freshwater. Should
the regulations be amended to better recognise that use, and the level of fishing
interest in some of these other species increases, a review of the management settings
in place to ensure sustainability will need to be taken.
Undesirable species
71
Koi were thought to have been released in New Zealand as a result of being confused
with juvenile goldfish. Enabling the take of smaller sized fish may also result in the
taking of juvenile koi from the wild. This outcome is desirable where the koi is
recognised as such, and killed on capture. However, it may also give rise to some risk
that juvenile lifestages of undesirable species are then released back into the water,
usually at the point of capture. This risk is already apparent given the use of other
fishing methods. The issue is of more consequence where such undesirable species
are moved to other regions where it does not already occur.
72
There are provisions in conservation legislation prohibiting the release of freshwater
aquatic life into waterways without authority. MFish does not consider that the use of
fine mesh nets would change the risks of unintentional capture and transfer of other
undesirable species such as aquatic plants (eg, hornwort), Didymo, or mosquitofish.
MFish and other fishery interests will continue to work with other agencies in
providing education material on minimising these risks. This includes the desired
practice of ensuring that fishing equipment is clean and dry before being used in new
areas.
Benefits
73
MFish considers that the benefits outweigh the costs for this option. Providing the
exemption will enable an appropriate net mesh to be used when fishing for particular
fish species found in freshwater. The level of current and expected medium term use
does not raise concerns from a sustainability perspective. Similarly, the nature of
these fishing activities is not likely to cause significant management problems with
inter-related fisheries resources or particular interests groups. There are other avenues
to address such concerns, including resolving any potential problems directly with the
interest concerned.
18
74
Where the taking of the species using a fine meshed net is encompassed within the
regulatory framework for recreational fishing, this would have an added advantage as
it relates to customary fishing activities. Kaitiaki would not need to issue customary
authorisations to overcome the net mesh minima of 100 mm for all other relevant fish
species when undertaking fishing under the Amateur Regulations.
75
Commercial fishers will be able to retain a wider range of fish when using a net in
freshwater, such that opportunities for efficiencies of capture can be made. Similarly,
the likelihood of a commercial or recreational fisher committing an offence of taking
species other than those exempted will significantly reduce. Offences will then be
more clearly related to the inappropriate use of fisheries resources, and the
management settings in place will have more credibility.
76
Adjusting the minimum net mesh size for various fish species will have the secondary
benefit of increasing awareness of the sustainable use of these fisheries resources, and
the potential to adjust management settings in place under fisheries legislation for this
purpose. This may assist future MFish initiatives focusing on better identification of
fisheries management outcomes for people interested in the use of these fisheries
resources.
Other Management Controls
77
MFish does not envisage that the nature and extent of the existing use of nets by
recreational fishers will significantly change as a result of these proposals. The
objectives for the use of freshwater fisheries resources by this fishery interest will be
better defined over the medium term.
78
Commercial fishers taking species proposed for inclusion in the exemption will be
able to better report that catch, whether as bycatch or as target, as a result of the
related regulatory proposal on additional species codes for statutory reporting in this
IPP volume. Having the ability to report catch taken will enable a more informed
basis from which future management settings can be proposed. The ability to report
catch illegally taken is also one aspect of meeting a legislative obligation if a defence
needs to be claimed.
Statutory Considerations
79
For a discussion of the relevant statutory considerations see the Appendix. The
Minister of Fisheries may recommend the making of relevant regulations under
section 297 of the Act.
80
Making adjustment to the fishing methods that may be used does not alter the fact that
there may be other legislative provisions that restrict or prohibit the targeting of
individual species for certain purposes (e.g., taonga species).
Other Management Issues
81
The proposals do not affect restrictions that may otherwise be in place to prohibit or
restrict the commercial or recreational use of some fish species found in freshwater.
For example, in the case of brown bullhead catfish, fishers are not allowed to retain
19
this species in a live state 17. A further example is that sports fish may not be sold
under provisions of the Conservation Act 1987.
82
The proposals in this paper relate to a ‘net’, but not a ‘whitebait net’, as defined in the
Whitebait Fishing Regulations 1994 and the Whitebait Fishing (West Coast)
Regulations 1994. ‘Whitebait’ is the young or fry of five galaxiid species and
common smelt. The taking of older life stages of these galaxiid species and common
smelt is encompassed under fisheries legislation and the proposals in this paper
regarding net use apply. As it is relatively straight forward to identify whether the
galaxiid and common smelt species taken are either in a translucent (whitebait) or
pigmented older lifestage, it is correspondingly easy to determine what regulatory
framework applies for the taking of these species.
83
If the Minister of Fisheries agrees to implement the proposals in this paper, then there
will be no difference in the minimum net mesh size applying to either whitebait or the
older lifestages of the these six species. This level of consistency may be desirable in
the longer term, where the aspirations of sustainable use of all lifestages of these
species are considered together.
17
The Amateur Regulations require that all recreational fishers must kill catfish on capture, and the Commercial
Regulations require that all commercial fishers must kill catfish before being sold to a licenced fish receiver.
20
Appendix
Statutory Considerations
84
In forming the management options discussed in this paper, the following statutory
considerations were taken into account:
a)
Section 5(a) and (b) – Application of international obligations and Treaty
of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992: New Zealand has
many international obligations relating to fishing (including obligations
relating to sustainability and utilisation of fishstocks and maintaining
biodiversity).
MFish considers that the proposal is consistent with
international obligations relating to fishing and the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
b)
Section 8 – Purpose: The purpose of the Act is to provide for the utilisation
of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. MFish considers that the
proposal would better provide for the purpose of the Act. MFish considers
that exempting recreational and commercial fishers from the requirement to
comply with minimum 100 mm net mesh size for particular fish species found
in freshwater will better enable people to provide for their social,economic and
cultural wellbeing. The present regulatory provision for minimum net mesh
size is considered unnecessarily restrictive in preventing the retention of catch
of fish species found in freshwater, unless non-netting methods are used.
Further, MFish considers that based on the available information, some
additional fishing activity could be made available without creating
sustainability concerns.
c)
Section 9 – Environmental principles: MFish considers that the proposal
will facilitate the use of a range of fish species when netting methods are used.
The methods of netting employed are either already in use, or would typically
be of a sufficiently small scale bearing in mind the physical limitations of
fishing in some freshwater bodies. MFish considers that the current proposal
in itself will not affect the longer term viability of associated and dependent
species, the maintenance of biological diversity of the aquatic environment, or
the protection of habitat of particular significance for fisheries management.
d)
Section 10 – Information principles: The extent of fishing activities
undertaken if the size restrictions for certain species were removed is not
known with certainty. However, MFish considers that sustainability concerns
are not presented by the proposed measures. The view is supported by the
relatively low level of current interest in fishing these species with legal
methods. MFish considers that the best available information in this case is
the assessment of the implications of the regulatory framework to the
attainment of the Act’s purpose. The Minister should be cautious when
information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate; and the absence of, or any
uncertainty in, any information should not be used as a reason for postponing
or failing to take any measure to achieve the purpose of the Act.
e)
Section 297 – General Regulations: The Governor-General may make
regulations for the wide range of purposes set out in that section. One purpose
includes the regulating or controlling of fishing and the possession, processing,
21
and disposal of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed including regulating or
prohibiting any method of fishing (section 297(1)(a)(vii)).
Extract of regulations under review
Regulation 6 of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986
6.
Minimum net mesh size…
(1) A person must not use a net to take a species of fish specified in the following
table unless the net mesh size used is at least the minimum net mesh size specified for
the species of fish in the following table:
Species of fish
Blue cod
Blue moki
Butterfish
Eels
Elephant fish
Flatfish
Garfish (piper)
Hapuku/bass
Herrings
Kahawai
Kingfish
Mullet
Pilchard
Red cod
Red moki
Rig
Snapper
Tarakihi
Trevally
All others (excluding quinnat
salmon)
Minimum net mesh size (mm)
—
115
108
12
150
100
25
—
25
85
100
85
25
100
115
150
100
100
100
100
Regulation 31 of the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001
31.
Minimum finfish … net mesh size
(1) Commercial fishers must not use or possess nets whose mesh size is smaller than
that specified for each species in the table in subclause (6), measured in accordance
with the requirements of Part 2 of Schedule 3.
(2) The restriction in subclause (1) does not apply if purse seine or lampara nets are
used by commercial fishers to take albacore, anchovy, blue mackerel, jack mackerel,
garfish, kahawai, koheru, pilchard, saury, skipjack tuna, trevally, or yellowfin tuna.
(3) Despite subclause (1), commercial fishers may take koi or brown bullhead catfish
with fyke nets, so long as the mesh of the nets is not less than 12 mm.
22
…
(5) No person may sell, possess for sale, or process for sale finfish or eels less than the
length or weight respectively specified for those species.
(6) Commercial fishers must not take or possess finfish that are smaller than the
length specified in the following table for each species:
Species of fish
Blue cod
Blue moki
Butterfish
Eels
Elephant fish
Flatfishes (except sand flounder)
Garfish (piper)
Kahawai
Kingfish
Mullet
Pilchard
Red cod
Red moki
Rig
Sand flounder
Snapper
Tarakihi
Trevally
Yellow-eyed mullet
All others
23
Minimum net mesh size (mm)
115
108
150
100
25
85
100
85
25
100
115
150
100
100
100
100
25
100
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT – EXCEPTION TO
MINIMUM NET MESH FOR TAKING OF FISH SPECIES
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) proposes to amend national recreational and
commercial fishing regulations to exempt fishers from needing to use 100 mm net
mesh for the taking of specified fish species found predominantly in freshwater.
Adequacy Statement
2
This Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by the Ministry of Fisheries
(MFish) Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Committee and is considered to meet the
criteria agreed by Cabinet.
Status Quo and Problem
The Current Situation
3
The minimum net mesh size for the ‘all other’ category of fish species was originally
set at a time where the predominant species of harvest interest were found in the
marine environment, and/or the species of specific harvest interest had individual
measures set out in regulation (eg, eels, grey mullet). The net mesh minima specified
for species within the ‘all others’ category for amateur fishing is 100 mm, as well as
in the ‘all others (excluding quinnat salmon)’ for commercial fishing.
Why Government Action is Needed
4
The management objective is to recognise that some existing methods of fishing for
smaller sized fish species found in freshwater is presently restricted, and the use of
such methods may in fact be quite reasonable. Current fishing activities by some
recreational interests using fine mesh nets for some fish species are technically illegal.
5
Commercial fishers may take some fish species as a bycatch of existing fishing
activities for eels, catfish or koi, using fine meshed nets. The current minimum net
mesh specification (ie, 100 mm) for the catch of other fish species creates a high
likelihood that offences against provisions of the Act would be committed. Given the
species expected to be caught in the freshwater environment, it is unlikely that a
reasonable defence about accidental and unintentional catch could be claimed by
either a recreational or a commercial fisher in any Court proceeding.
6
1 October 2004, commercial access to fisheries resources not managed under the
QMS was liberalised with the lifting of a moratorium on the issuing of fishing
permits. Some commercial fishers have expressed an interest in the commercial
fishing of species not previously fished. Given the current regulatory provision on
minimum net mesh sizes, target fishing for these species is limited to fish traps, which
are not encompassed by the definition of a net.
24
Objectives
7
The purpose of the Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while
ensuring sustainability. Similarly, decision makers must take account of a number of
environmental and information principles in exercising or performing functions etc
under the Act. The proposal aims to better recognise the recreational and commercial
netting methods used to catch relatively small sized fish species found predominantly
in freshwater.
Alternative options
8
No alternative options have been identified.
Preferred option
9
MFish’s preferred option (other than the status quo) is to amend national recreational
and commercial fishing regulations to enable the use of a net with a minimum net
mesh size of less than 100 mm, for specified species of fish found in freshwater.
Impacts
10
The regulatory amendment will set out an exception from the general requirement to
comply with a minimum net mesh of 100 mm for the taking of ‘all other’ fish species.
The list of species proposed for inclusion in the exception are generally those of small
size, and where the methods of capture typically involve surrounding the catch so that
they are taken in a live state.
11
The proposal will result in a reduction of technical offences made by both recreational
and commercial fishers carrying out reasonable fishing activities for species found in
the freshwater. This will reduce the compliance costs associated with the otherwise
legitimate recreational and commercial use of fisheries resources found predominantly
in freshwater.
12
The proposal will also remove the current exception applying to the recreational use
of a fyke net, having a minimum of 12 mm net mesh, for the purpose of taking catfish
and koi, and applying the exception more generally to the use of a net of any net mesh
size for these species. This outcome would be consistent with the present
arrangements for the commercial sector.
13
The proposal also seeks to extend the exception applying to the commercial taking of
Stokell’s smelt using a ‘whitebait net’ (as defined under separate legislation) to a ‘net’
(as defined under fisheries legislation), and similarly apply the exception for this
species to recreational fishers. These minor amendments will seek to standardise and
simplify the application of the exception to both sectors and for all relevant species
and methods of fishing used.
Benefits
14
Providing the exception will legalise some recreational target netting of fish species
found predominantly in freshwater. Commercial fishers will be able to retain a wider
25
range of fish when using a net in freshwater, such that opportunities for efficiencies of
capture can be made. Similarly, the likelihood of a commercial or recreational fisher
committing an offence of taking species other than those exempted will significantly
reduce. Offences will then be more clearly related to the inappropriate use of fisheries
resources. The management settings in place will therefore have more credibility, and
fishers will be more inclined to take steps to avoid committing offences related to
inappropriate netting activities for fish found in freshwater.
Costs
15
The aim of the present proposal is to better recognise in fisheries regulations that
certain fishing methods are used for particular species found in freshwater. Should
the regulations be amended to better recognise that use, and over time the level of
fishing interest in some of these other species increase, a review of the management
settings in place to ensure sustainability will need to be taken.
Implementation and review
16
MFish proposes that the amendments to the national recreational and commercial
fishing regulations, if approved, will come into effect in June 2009.
17
Affected parties will be notified of changes through the MFish external website, and
through contact with relevant Commercial Stakeholder Organisations and
representative commercial fishers.
18
MFish will periodically monitor the use of fish species taken by commercial fishers
through their statutory returns to assess whether the regulatory amendment is serving
its purpose, in addition to addressing any potential risk of increased use. Similarly,
over the medium term, MFish will contact recreational interests to assess whether the
management settings are allowing their reasonable harvesting aspirations to be met.
Consultation
19
Representatives of tangata whenua, commercial, recreational and environmental
interests were consulted during September 2008. The issue has previously been
discussed in general terms with representatives of commercial fishing interests who
have a particular interest in freshwater issues.
20
Staff from the Department of Conservation and representative Fish and Game
Councils has been advised of the proposal.
26
SPECIES CODES FOR REPORTING COMMERCIAL
CATCH – INITIAL POSITION PAPER
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) proposes to amend Part 2 of Schedule 3 of the
Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 (the Reporting Regulations) to add further
species codes for statutory reporting purposes for commercial fishing.
2
Regulating further codes for species found in freshwater will assist in monitoring the
commercial catch of these species and their inter-relationship with other aquatic life.
This will provide a better basis on which to assess future management options. The
proposal is confined to the improvement of commercial catch reporting. The proposal
does not seek to alter the provisions that authorise the take of these species under
other provisions of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act), and as may be restricted by other
legislation or regulation.
3
Regulations to prescribe the information specified in statutory returns 18 may be made
under the general regulation making power of the Act (ie, section 297(1)(h)). The key
regulatory framework for the reporting of information derived from commercial
fishing activities is the Reporting Regulations, and the Schedules of reporting codes
contained in those regulations.
4
This paper focuses on the need to specify further codes for a range of species found in
freshwater, and to codify these in regulation. These species are either being taken as a
bycatch in existing fishing operations, or are subject to some limited interest in target
fishing operations for a range of end uses, including live capture.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
5
This Initial Position Paper (IPP) required a Regulatory Impact Statement which was
reviewed internally by MFish.
6
For more information on the Regulatory Impact Analysis requirements and the
meaning of the word ‘significant’ with reference to an IPP, please refer to the
Ministry of Economic Development website, www.med.govt.nz.
The Issue
General approach
7
Most species of aquatic life 19 may be commercially fished. Commercial fishers are
required to submit statutory returns on species taken when commercial fishing. The
18
The kinds of statutory returns are defined in regulation 4 of the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001.
‘Aquatic life’ is defined in the Fisheries Act 1996 to mean any species of plant or animal life that, at any stage
in its life history, must inhabit water, whether living or dead, and includes seabirds (whether or not in the
aquatic environment).
19
27
Reporting Regulations are periodically amended to include further species codes
relating to the catch taken. Species codes are used irrespective of whether the species
in question is taken commercially as a target species, or as a bycatch of other species
being targeted.
8
The purpose and principles of the Act supports a need to obtain information for
fisheries management decisions. The development of management advice is most
likely to be best achieved from the basis of having good information on the nature and
extent of such use. Consequently, a regulatory framework has been developed to
manage and record the use of fisheries resources by commercial fishers. The initial
specification of a species reporting code is one of the basic steps taken to enable the
collection of catch information.
Existing regulatory framework
Species codes regulated in the Schedules of the Reporting Regulations
9
Regulation 37 of the Reporting Regulations provides that codes are to be used for
certain entries on statutory returns furnished by commercial fishers. Species codes are
set out in Part 2 of Schedule 3 of the Reporting Regulations. Species codes currently
specified in this Schedule for species found in freshwater include, amongst others,
shortfin eel, longfin eel, brown bullhead catfish, koi and quinnat salmon. This
represents only a small proportion of species likely to be taken by commercial fishers
on a regular basis, even if the quantities involved may be relatively small.
10
Commercial fishers are required to enter a species code to which the return relates
(Regulation 37(b)). Commercial fishers taking species found in freshwater would
therefore need to complete relevant species code entries when completing the:
11
a)
Freshwater Eel Catch Effort Return (ECER);
b)
Freshwater Eel Catch Landing Return (ECLR);
c)
Catch, Effort and Landing Return (CELR), and the;
d)
Monthly Harvest Return (MHR);
The above returns are applicable to a broad range of species of aquatic life. The two
eel forms must be used by commercial fishers when targeting eel fisheries.
Use of explanatory notes accompanying statutory returns
12
Regulation 29(3) of the Reporting Regulations enables the chief executive of MFish
to provide explanatory notes for the return forms. The purpose of the explanatory
notes is to explain or elaborate on the manner in which the relevant return must be
completed or provided. Explanatory notes were provided with the ECER and ECLR
when introduced in October 2001. Some species codes were included in the
accompanying explanatory notes if they were not already in the Reporting
Regulations at that time. The explanatory notes for the ECER and ECLR forms have
not been updated since their introduction. However, ‘brown bullhead catfish’
(cf. freshwater catfish) has more recently been codified in regulation.
28
13
The explanatory notes for the ECER and ECLR forms currently provide the following
species codes that must be used when completing these forms.
Species
Code specified Code specified Scientific name
ECLR
for
ECER for
explanatory notes
explanatory
notes
Freshwater
catfish 20
CAT
CAT
Ictalurus nebulosus
Brown trout
BTR
BTR
Salmo trutta
Freshwater perch
FLU
FLU
Perca fluviatilis
Freshwater
crayfish
KOU
KOU
Paranephros
(sic)
Goldfish
CAU
CAU
Carassius auratus
and GLX
GLX
Galaxiidae spp
Koi carp
KOI
KOI
Cyprinus carpio
Giant bully
GGO
GGO
Gobiomorphus
gobioides
Bullies
BUL
BUL
Electridae spp
Rudd
RDD
RDD
Scardinius
erythrophthalmus
Flatfish
-
FLA
– including flounder,
sole, brill, and turbot
Black flounder
BFL
-
Rhombosolea retiara
Brill
BRI
-
Colistium guntheri
Greenback
flounder
GFL
-
Rhombosolea
tapirina
Lemon sole
LSO
-
Pelotretis flavilatus
NZ sole
ESO
-
Peltorhamphus
novaezelandiae
Sand flounder
SFL
-
Rhombosolea plebeia
Turbot
TUR
-
Colistium nudipinnis
Yellowbelly
flounder
YBF
-
Rhombosolea
leporina
Whitebait
kokopu
20
spp
An updated common and scientific name for brown bullhead catfish (Ameiurus nebulosus) has been inserted
into the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 as at January 2006. The species code has remained the same.
29
14
The explanatory notes for the completion of CELRs and MHRs do not include
reference to the species codes referred to in the explanatory notes for ECERs and
ECLRs, other than for the eight flatfish species.
Reporting species codes by a commercial fisher
15
A commercial fisher is obliged to enter a species code where one is provided, as set
out in Part 2, Schedule 3, of the Reporting Regulations (regulation 37(b)). Where the
relevant species code is not available there, a commercial fisher must comply with the
explanatory notes provided for the completion of the relevant form.
16
In the absence of an appropriate species code in the explanatory notes, a commercial
fisher is reliant on a directive from the chief executive of MFish as to how returns
must be completed (regulation 39(2) of the Reporting Regulations). However,
commercial fishers are not obliged to seek assistance in such circumstances.
17
The specification and promotion of a reasonable range of species codes in the
Reporting Regulations will enable commercial fishers to correctly complete their
returns on a monthly basis. This will remove the inconvenience and potential time
delay associated with obtaining an appropriate species code, particularly near the due
date for the furnishing of returns. Commercial fishers face financial penalties for the
late submission of returns.
18
The latter situation is not an efficient administrative process for the longer term.
Directives from the chief executive are typically used as interim arrangements while
particular code entries are developed for longer term use and codified through
regulation.
The outcome sought
19
Providing additional species codes in regulation will enable more efficient and
effective monitoring of commercial use of fisheries resources found in freshwater.
Most species codes proposed are already used in other databases or in conjunction
with other authorities under fisheries legislation. Recognition of these species codes
in regulation will minimise the potential for reporting errors. For example, fish
farmers, who may also be commercial fishers, have obligations to record information
on the species they have in their possession.
20
The need for better specification of commercial catch of freshwater species was
initially highlighted in the development of new reporting returns for the eel fishery
prior to October 2001. A 2004 review of management measures related to bycatch in
the eel fishery also noted that the reporting framework was able to capture
information on species taken as a bycatch.
21
In addition, a statutory moratorium on the issuing of fishing permits to new entrants
for most non-quota management system (QMS) species was lifted in October 2004.
With the lifting of the moratorium, some interest has been expressed in commercial
use of freshwater species other than those used to date (e.g., eels, catfish, koi). This
includes the targeting of some species for the aquarium trade, and use in species
conservation or enhancement programmes with a commercial element. Accordingly,
30
the current initiative to update and add an appropriate range of further species codes to
the regulatory framework is timely.
22
There is also a need to review some of the species codes provided in the explanatory
notes for the relevant returns for freshwater species. Some of the stated species codes
do not necessarily reflect the preference to report the catch of each species (e.g., BUL
– ‘bullies’ encompasses all species within the family, but more species specific
reporting is preferred). In general, the reporting of catch on a species by species basis
will allow for more informed assessments about sustainable use of the respective
species. The correct species codes can now be codified in regulation as part of this
review. Species codes provided in explanatory notes can be updated as a consequence
of amendments to the Reporting Regulations. This is an administrative step
undertaken by the chief executive of MFish.
23
Where sufficient information is available on the species being taken, fishery managers
and a wide range of fishery interests will be better able to assess whether the use of
fisheries resources is consistent with the purpose and principles of the Act. The
inclusion of further species codes in the Reporting Regulations will provide the
desired transparency for commercial fishers when completing their returns.
Information derived from improved reporting can be used to better evaluate
management initiatives relating to the use of the species by a number of fishery
interests.
Summary of Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
24
Commercial fishers would only be able to readily use a limited number of species
codes under the status quo option. These would be derived from either the Reporting
Regulations or the explanatory notes accompanying returns.
25
This option does not enable the collection of catch information for species found in
freshwater. Under this option, MFish may need to allocate resources to ensure that
commercial fishers are complying with the regulatory framework as it exists. This
includes the issuing of ad hoc directives from the chief executive of MFish to
commercial fishers on the species codes that should be used when completing their
returns.
26
Retaining the status quo will not enable commercial fishers to better document the
aquatic life taken when commercial fishing. Commercial fishers, particularly those
wishing to target particular species found in freshwater, are likely to experience some
delay in attempting to furnish accurate returns as guidance on species codes may need
to be obtained.
27
Accurate information on the catch of a variety of species will not necessarily be
available for evaluating the effects of commercial fishing, or developing appropriate
management responses where an undesirable impact is identified.
31
Option 2 – Addition of further species codes – MFish Preferred Option
28
MFish proposes to recommend the amendment of Part 2, Schedule 3, of the Reporting
Regulations to list further species codes for freshwater species taken by commercial
fishers. The species and their proposed codes are set out as follows.
Common name
Proposed species
code
Scientific name
Alpine galaxias
ALG
Galaxias paucispondylus
Atlantic salmon
ATS
Salmo salar
Banded kokopu
BKO
Galaxias fasciatus
Black mudfish
BCM
Neochanna diversus
Bluegill bully
BGB
Gobiomorphus hubbsi
Brook char
BKC
Salvelinus fontinalis
Brown mudfish
BNM
Neochanna apoda
Brown trout
BTR
Salmo trutta
Burgundy mudfish
(Northland mudfish)
NLM
Neochanna heleios
Canterbury galaxias
CNG
Galaxias vulgaris
Canterbury mudfish
CBM
Neochanna burrowsius
Common bully
GCO
Gobiomorphus cotidianus
Common smelt
SME
Retropinna retropinna
Cran’s bully
CBU
Gobiomorphus basalis
Dune lakes galaxias
DFI
Galaxias gracilis
Dwarf galaxias
DFG
Galaxias divergens
Estuary stargazer
ESZ
Leptoscopus macropygus
Estuarine triplefin
(Cockabully)
GNI
Grahamina nigripenne
Freshwater mussel
CWE
Cucumerunio websteri
Freshwater mussel
HME
Hyridella menziesii
Giant bully
GGO
Gobiomorphus gobioides
Giant kokopu
GKO
Galaxias argenteus
Goldfish
CAU
Carassius auratus
Grass carp
GRP
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Inanga
GMA
Galaxias maculatus
Koaro
KOA
Galaxias brevipinnis
Lamprey
LAM
Geotria australis
Northern koura
KPP
Paranephrops planifrons
32
29
Otago roundhead
galaxias (Roundhead
galaxias)
RHG
Galaxias anomalus
Perch
FLU
Perca fluviatilis
Quinnat Salmon
(Chinook salmon)
SAM
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Rainbow trout
RTR
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Redfin bully
RFB
Gobiomorphus huttoni
Rudd
RDD
Scardinius
erythrophthalmus
Sailfin molly
SFM
Peocilia latipinna
Short-jawed kokopu
SKO
Galaxias postvectis
Silver carp
SRP
Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix
Sockeye salmon
SOS
Oncorhynchus nerka
Southern koura
KPZ
Paranephrops zealandicus
Stokell’s smelt
STK
Stokellia anisodon
Taieri flathead
galaxias (Flathead
galaxias)
FHG
Galaxias depressiceps
Tench
TNC
Tinca tinca
Torrentfish
CHF
Cheimarrichthys fosteri
Upland bully
ULB
Gobiomorphus breviceps
Upland longjaw
galaxias (Longjaw
galaxias)
LJG
Galaxias prognathus
Watercress
WAT
Nasturtium microphyllum &
N. officinale
Other than the proposed addition of new species codes to Part 2, Schedule 3, of the
Reporting Regulations, the following species have subtle, yet important, proposed
changes to coding that is also proposed to be included in the Reporting Regulations.
Species (existing code) Proposed
new Proposed
species Nature of proposed
- and where currently species code for name for Reporting change
specified
Reporting
Regulations
Regulations
Bullies
(BUL)
– BUL retained, but
explanatory notes for specific
codes
ECER, ECLR.
introduced
for
BGB, GCO, GGO,
RFB, ULB.
Bluegill
bully
Gobiomorphus
hubbsi,
common
bully Gobiomorphus
cotidianus,
giant
33
Provide
species
specific codes for
listed bully species.
Retain BUL for use
when
taken
as
bully Gobiomorphus
gobioides,
redfin
bully Gobiomorphus
huttoni, upland bully
Gobiomorphus
breviceps.
Catfish
(freshwater) CAT – already in Brown
(CAT) – Reporting place.
catfish
Regulations.
nebulosus
Freshwater
crayfish KPP
(KOU) – explanatory
notes
for
ECER,
KPZ
ECLR.
Whitebait and kokopu
(GLX) – explanatory
notes
for
ECER,
ECLR.
30
bycatch, or for bully
species not having
their own species
code.
bullhead Removal
of
old
Ameiurus common name from
Part 2, Schedule 3, of
Reporting
Regulations.
Northern
koura Recognition of two
separately identifiable
Paranephrops
species; old species
planifrons
code proposed to be
Southern
koura
discontinued.
Paranephrops
Spelling error in
zealandicus
scientific name in
explanatory
notes
corrected.
GLX retained, but
specific
codes
introduced
for
BKO, GKO, SKO,
GMA, KOA, SME.
In addition, WHI
code introduced for
lifestages known as
whitebait.
Banded
kokopu
Galaxias fasciatus,
giant
kokopu
Galaxias argenteus,
short jawed kokopu
Galaxias postvectis,
inanga
Galaxias
maculatus,
koaro
Galaxias brevipinnis,
smelt
Retropinna
retropinna.
Provide
species
specific codes for
listed galaxiid and
smelt species. Retain
GLX for use when
these species taken as
bycatch,
or
for
galaxiid species not
having their own
species code. WHI
used
solely
for
juvenile
lifestages
known as whitebait.
Should the Minister of Fisheries (the Minister) agree to the amendment of the
Schedules to the Reporting Regulations, it is proposed to consequently seek the chief
executive’s agreement to update the explanatory notes accompanying the returns
relevant to commercial catch in the freshwater environment. The update will include
those new species codes regulated, and any other relevant matters appropriately
placed in the explanatory notes.
Rationale for Management Options
Intent
31
The proposal seeks to codify species codes through regulatory amendment of
Schedule 3 of the Reporting Regulations with the intent that:
34
a)
existing species codes (as may be amended) should be promoted from
inclusion in the explanatory notes accompanying certain returns (but not
others), to apply generically to all returns;
b)
a few existing species codes are amended or adjusted to better reflect the
expected use of these codes for the longer term (ie, more specific codes);
c)
new species codes are introduced so commercial fishers can complete returns
without the need to seek a directive from the chief executive of MFish on how
to complete their return;
d)
MFish and the Minister are better able to carry out statutory responsibilities to
achieve the purpose and principles of the Act, and any obligation arising from
a specific Treaty settlement.
32
The opportunity has been taken to identify those species that are likely to be taken in
existing commercial fishing operations, or in related commercial ventures (e.g., fish
farming). Similarly, some species codes proposed in this paper are used for research
or fish farming databases. Such species codes are readily transposed for the future
completion of statutory returns by commercial fishers.
33
The addition of further species codes in regulation will provide greater transparency to
commercial fishers when completing their statutory returns, and provide for the
efficient administration of the reporting framework.
34
The catch information collected will provide a better basis for monitoring the use of
such species, and will be used in assessing future management measures required
under the Act. This will be a valuable source of information for those fishery interests
involved in subsequent discussions focused on identifying management objectives for
these fisheries resources.
Implementation
35
Regulations for the purpose of prescribing the manner and form of returns and
information specified in such returns may be made under the general regulation
making power of the Act (section 297(1)(h)). Species codes used by commercial
fishers are specified in Part 2, Schedule 3, of the Reporting Regulations. Should the
Minister agree to amend the regulations to add further species codes as proposed, this
is likely to come into effect by June 2009. This effective date provides for the normal
time period in developing and implementing new regulatory measures.
36
The fishing industry will be informed on any changes to the species codes used for
reporting through letters and website notification.
Identifiable commercial
stakeholder organisations with an interest in freshwater species will also be informed
on a personal basis. Initial advice of any changes will be made as a result of the
Minister’s decision letter, which typically precedes the regulatory development
process by some months. MFish will liaise with Commercial Fisheries Services Ltd
(FishServe) to ensure that the relevant administrative steps are undertaken prior to the
implementation date.
35
Candidate species
37
A full review of the species codes for species found in freshwater has previously not
been undertaken. Previous species codes have been developed to reflect the fisheries
of interest at the time, and the species largely taken as bycatch of those fishing
activities. A similar approach has generally been taken with marine fisheries
resources over recent decades.
38
The list of species codes proposed for inclusion in regulation also recognises that
limited target fishing of some species is either being undertaken now, or is proposed,
for a range of end uses (e.g., aquarium trade, conservation programmes).
Accordingly, the list of proposed species codes reflects the increased interest and
ability, since 2004, for fishery interests to take a wider variety of these species on a
commercial basis.
39
The ability to target some species commercially is not available in all circumstances,
nor is it within the scope of this proposal which focuses on improving the reporting
framework. For example, some species have a particular legal status in some
geographic areas as a result of Treaty settlements (e.g., taonga species). However, the
nature and extent of their unintentional capture in commercial fishing operations is of
importance to note.
40
There are a small number of species of aquatic life (e.g., sports fish) that hold a
particular status under other legislation. Species codes under fisheries legislation are
still appropriate for such species, in terms of the desire to be informed about the level
of interactions with such species and associated fishery interests. For example, sports
fish such as quinnat salmon (taken principally in southeast South Island trawl fishery)
or rainbow trout (eel or grey mullet fishery) are occasionally taken as bycatch in
commercial fishing operations. Commercial fishers are not allowed to keep such
catch, but are able to report its capture.
41
Information on the nature and extent of these types of interactions will be facilitated if
further species codes for a wider range of freshwater species are codified in
regulation. Species codes beyond those already in regulation (e.g., SAM for quinnat
salmon) have to date been made available to commercial fishers through the
explanatory notes for eel returns (e.g., RTR for rainbow trout). However, these and a
range of additional species should be now codified in regulation. This will allow
commercial fishers to report unintentional catch of these species in other fisheries
(e.g., set nets), that generally use other returns (e.g., CELRs).
42
Any future review of species codes can consider further additions as justified and
considered appropriate to meet the objective of securing information for fisheries
management purposes. Fishery interests may however identify some species that have
not been included in this IPP, but they may wish to see considered in the current
review.
36
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
43
MFish and fishery interests are not in a good enough position to clearly understand
the nature and extent of species caught in the freshwater environment. Most of the
existing information on commercial catch of other species is indicative only, other
than those species of historic interest. The development and evaluation of
management options would be made easier for all relevant species if catch
information was more reliable, accurate and available.
44
Commercial fishers have traditionally focussed on reporting the primary species of
interest to them, and /or other species that have been retained given some commercial
value. Catch information has mainly been captured on the CELR in the past. New
reporting forms (ie, ECER and ECLR) were introduced for the eel fishery in October
2001, and the reporting of bycatch species was similarly factored into the design of
the returns.
45
The explanatory notes provided for the two eel reporting forms did specify species
codes for a range of freshwater species taken as bycatch of eel fishing. However, the
level of compliance with the reporting of other bycatch species taken in the freshwater
environment has not been as high as desired. The lack of species codes within the
regulatory framework may not have assisted with achieving the desired outcomes,
even though the explanatory notes provided guidance on completion of species code
information for some species.
46
If the status quo is maintained, there will be a need to increase adherence to the
reporting of catch against existing species codes. Similarly, some commercial fishers
interested in the targeting of some species found in freshwater will need to rely on
directives from the chief executive of MFish on how the returns should be furnished.
This is not a systematic and efficient way to operate an administrative system for the
reporting of commercial catch, particularly if the species are, or could be, taken
reasonably frequently.
47
The inclusion of further species codes in the explanatory notes is generally not
consistent with the purpose of the notes to explain or elaborate on the reporting
requirements set out in regulation. Inclusion of species codes in the explanatory notes
could only be seen as an interim step prior to codification of appropriate codes in the
Schedules to the Reporting Regulations.
48
Retaining the status quo would similarly mean that the identification of individual
species catch would not be as specific as desired from a longer term management
perspective. For example, the current species codes for both bully and koura species
do not distinguish between the various species involved. This would have an impact
on MFish’s ability to provide advice to the Minister on management measures
appropriate to the species in question, in accordance with the statutory obligations of
the Act.
37
49
MFish’s enforcement strategy for freshwater fisheries has focused on species of
particular interest including shortfin eel, longfin eel, koi and catfish. This reflected
the topical nature and interest in the use of these species. As future monitoring of the
use of those resources is undertaken, the opportunity will be taken to monitor the
adherence to the species codes for other species found in freshwater. Similarly,
MFish is generally aware of the identity of industry members with an interest in other
species found in freshwater. MFish anticipates that on-going liaison with the small
niche industry for these species should resolve any compliance issues without the
need for enforcement action.
50
There are a number of Treaty Settlements with hapu and iwi throughout the country
that emphasise the importance of freshwater fisheries resources as taonga. There is a
need for the Crown to have in place management strategies that recognise these
values. The existing management strategies may not be seen as sufficient to ensure
that these values are not affected. Where the use of these resources remains relatively
light, the risks to these values may be relatively small. However, there is a need to
have systems in place to better assess any such impacts on these values.
51
If the status quo is maintained, it is highly likely that the same proposal will need to
be considered again. The need to monitor the use of fisheries resources found in the
freshwater environment is an on-going priority.
Costs
52
Some commercial fishers wish to target species found in freshwater and want to
ensure that their activities are adequately encompassed by the reporting framework.
These interests understand the need to ensure that their fishing activities are
undertaken in a sustainable way, and appreciate the need for accurate reporting of
their operations. Retaining the status quo is likely to lead to some difficulties for such
commercial fishers, when attempting to adequately complete returns.
53
Similarly, MFish and the Minister may have difficulty in adhering to statutory
obligations under the Act over the medium to longer term where information is
deficient in some way for the purposes of management. The aim of encouraging
transparency, accuracy and compliance with the reporting framework might also be
affected where MFish has not provided the necessary means to adequately report
catch.
54
If the status quo is maintained, the accuracy of catch information for a broader range
of species taken in freshwater may not improve. Similarly, efficiency gains from an
administrative perspective may not be addressed. With the status quo left in place, the
opportunity would be lost to gain better information about the commercial use of
species found in freshwater, prior to broader management initiatives that support
sustainable use outcomes.
55
A failure to undertake a reasonably comprehensive review of species codes at this
time may add to the compliance costs of administering data, databases, and the
number of interactions between FishServe and commercial fishers. In addition, there
is a greater chance that ancillary steps (e.g., liaison with Maori, compliance
initiatives) will need to be undertaken to ensure that statutory obligations of the
Minister and MFish are not compromised.
38
Benefits
56
There are no benefits in maintaining the status quo over the medium to longer term.
The statutory obligations of MFish and the Minister to act in accordance with the
purpose and principles of the Act are unlikely to be adequately met over that
timeframe.
57
Some cost savings, in terms of MFish resources, may be made in not seeking to
implement the work already done to date in preparing the proposed species codes
proposed in this paper. However, this may only defer the completion of the tasks
associated with refining the reporting framework. It is inevitable that further species
codes will be required to monitor the commercial use of a wider range of species.
Option 2 – Addition of further species codes – MFish Preferred Option
Impact
58
Commercial fishers are already required to specify species codes in their returns,
whether these are derived from the Schedule to the Reporting Regulations, or from the
explanatory notes for particular returns. Inclusion of the proposed species codes in
the Schedules of the Reporting Regulations will ensure that these additional codes are
available for general use. These species codes would apply to all types of return that a
commercial fisher may need to complete.
59
At present, the explanatory notes differ between different returns in terms of the
extent of species codes available for use. Addition of further species codes to the
Reporting Regulations will also emphasise that data on the commercial catch of the
affected species is required, irrespective of whether taken as a target or bycatch
fishery.
60
There are advantages to commercial fishers and MFish where the parameters of the
reporting framework are clearly understood. Where the species codes for the
completion of returns are appropriately placed in regulations, the explanatory notes
can be focused on any elaboration required to assist commercial fishers in the
completion of their returns. Similarly, the chief executive won’t need to provide
directives as to how returns are completed for the species mentioned in this paper,
which would be the case if the status quo was retained.
61
Should further species codes be codified in regulation, then explanatory notes for the
relevant returns can be updated by the chief executive of MFish. Thereafter, MFish
may request that FishServe monitors the accuracy of species code entries on returns
subsequently furnished by commercial fishers. The intent would be to assess whether
commercial fishers are having any difficulties associated with the entry of further
species codes. In addition, MFish will work directly with commercial stakeholder
organisations, key Licenced Fish Receivers (LFRs) and commercial fishers, to ensure
that the use of new species codes is understood.
62
MFish does not envisage that the completion of species codes in a return for the wider
range of species within this paper will result in a significant time commitment for
commercial fishers. Typically, a commercial fisher operating in freshwater does not
39
catch many species at any one time, and the methods used are reasonably selective.
Relatively more species are caught on any one occasion in the marine environment.
63
A slight increase in data entry by FishServe may result, but the number of commercial
fishers operating in the freshwater environment is relatively low (~5%) in comparison
to the overall number of all commercial fishers. Several of the species codes are
already required to be entered on eel forms as a result of their inclusion in the
explanatory notes for those returns. As the offence and penalty regime for the failure
to submit returns with the required information is reasonably generic, it is not
proposed to make any adjustments to those settings as a result of adding the proposed
species codes in this review.
Costs
64
The regulatory amendment will provide greater transparency for commercial fishers
and administrators, and therefore should reduce compliance costs over the medium
term. There will be a need in the short term to ensure that commercial fishers are
aware and informed of the availability of the species codes in regulation, and draw
their attention to updated explanatory notes that accompany returns.
65
MFish does not consider that the additional data entries required to be made on returns
will be onerous for commercial fishers, or of significance to the data entry function
undertaken by FishServe. Most commercial fishing operations in the freshwater
environment catch a small variety of species at the one time.
66
The proposal will be of more consequence for the small number of commercial fishers
who wish to take a wider range of species found in freshwater. Such activities are
likely to be quite focused on particular species using relatively selective fishing
methods. These commercial interests recognise that the use of other species comes
with a reasonable expectation of reporting for the purposes of achieving good fisheries
management outcomes.
67
This paper has considered a reasonably broad range of species found in freshwater
which is more efficient than undertaking repeated reviews each year as further species
codes are desired. Accordingly, future costs to the Crown, some of which are
recoverable from the fishing industry, are able to be avoided.
Benefits
68
The proposed regulatory amendment will enable commercial fishers to complete their
returns with increased clarity and transparency. The proposed species codes will then
apply to all types of return. Provision of the additional species codes will enable the
relevant returns to be completed without reference to FishServe or MFish for
guidance. The addition of the proposed species codes in the Reporting Regulations
will lead to an increase in the efficiency of administrative processes and systems, and
strengthen the integrity of the reporting framework. The explanatory notes can be
refocused to elaborate on how returns should be completed, rather than being used for
the longer term purpose of specifying the codes for use.
69
Obtaining better information on the commercial use of fisheries resources will
facilitate the monitoring and management of these resources consistent with the
40
purpose and principles of the Act. The QMS directly limits the quantity of overall
catch for species managed by this system. However, with some exceptions,
commercial access is generally unconstrained for those species managed outside of
this system. Access to these other species was generally prevented from 1992 as a
result of a statutory moratorium on the issuing of fishing permits – this was lifted in
2004.
70
Obtaining information on the catch of the various species not managed under the
QMS is quite valuable when assessing the status of a fishery over the longer term.
Putting in place the basic specifications for reporting of this catch will enable fishery
interests to better monitor the use of these resources and be proactive in developing
management strategies.
71
Information obtained from improved species reporting can also be used to assess the
extent to which such fisheries resources are taken that may also be the subject of
interest to other fishery interests, particularly tangata whenua. As some hapu and iwi
have identified interests in some of these species, MFish can consider in conjunction
with fishery interests whether those interests are being affected.
Other Management Controls
72
The specification of species codes discussed in this paper relate to commercial use.
However, it is important to recognise that the same species codes are generally used
for categorising the catch of other fishery interests. The same species codes are
generally used when conducting research on recreational catch, and can be applied to
the reporting and storing of data for customary catch purposes.
Statutory Considerations
73
Fisheries resources need to be used on a sustainable basis. Obtaining information on
the nature and extent of any such use provides a basis from which the nature of the
use can be tested against statutory obligations. The current proposal simply provides
information on what species are taken by commercial fishers. Such catch may be
derived from either direct fishing for these species, or they may be taken as a bycatch
of fishing for other species.
74
The specification of further species codes for catch of commercial fishers will provide
a more informed basis from which any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic
environment can be assessed. The collection of further basic and relevant information
for the purpose of the Act will also contribute to improved future decisions. The
uncertainty and unreliability of information made available to decision makers can be
progressively reduced, and the adequacy of information improved.
41
Appendices
Statutory Considerations
75
In forming the management options discussed in this paper, the following statutory
considerations were taken into account:
a)
Section 5(a) and (b) – Application of international obligations and Treaty
of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992: There is a wide range
of international obligations relating to fishing (including sustainability and
utilisation of fishstocks and maintaining biodiversity). MFish considers issues
arising under international obligations and the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 are adequately addressed in
the management options. The collection of information underpins the
appropriate use of fisheries resources, taking into account the differing values
that fishery interests may have, what may be taken on a sustainable basis, and
what other biological interactions may be affected.
b)
The provision of information will enable a more objective assessment on the
use of fisheries resources and an assessment of any potential risks and impacts
on other fishery interests, or other fisheries resources. Further, refining the
reporting framework will enhance the Crown’s ability to develop policies to
help recognise customary use and management practices. There are several
species found in the freshwater environment that are considered taonga, and
some of these are already recognised in settlement obligations between
relevant hapu/iwi and the Crown.
c)
Section 8 – Purpose: The purpose of the Act is to provide for the utilisation
of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. Enabling the collection of
commercial catch information will assist fishery interests, MFish and the
Minister in their respective assessment of how the purpose of the Act, in its
various elements, is being met.
d)
Section 9 – Environmental principles: The proposal will enable better
information to be collected on the array of species taken by commercial
fishers. This will assist MFish and the Minister when taking into account the
environmental principles for subsequent management activities. The current
proposal in itself will not affect the longer term viability of associated and
dependent species, the maintenance of biological diversity, or the protection of
habitat of particular significance for fisheries management. The value in the
current proposal is in its application to these principles when considering
further management initiatives.
e)
Section 10 – Information principles: Decisions made under the Act should
be based on the best available information. Further, decision makers need to
consider any uncertainty in the information available, and be cautious when it
is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. Beyond that, the absence of, or
uncertainty in any information should not be used as a reason for postponing
or failing to take any measure to achieve the purpose of the Act.
f)
The proposal seeks to provide a better basis for decision making as it relates to
the use of fisheries resources found in the freshwater environment. There is a
reasonable amount of uncertainty, unreliability and inadequacy associated with
42
information on the use of fisheries resources found in freshwater. The level of
deficiency in these factors is greater than desired in light of the statutory
obligations and management initiatives that have been taken, or are likely to be
taken, over the medium term.
g)
The proposal seeks to initiate further improvements in the capture of
commercial catch data. In developing the current proposal, MFish considers
that the purpose of the Act would be better achieved with refinement to the
reporting framework for commercial fishing activities.
43
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT - SPECIES
CODES FOR REPORTING COMMERCIAL CATCH
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) proposes to amend Part 2 of Schedule 3 of the
Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001 (the Reporting Regulations) to clarify and/or
add further species codes for statutory reporting purposes for commercial fishing.
The current review of species codes focuses on species of aquatic life found in
freshwater. Provision of further species codes will allow commercial fishers to
comply with the reporting framework provided by the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act).
With improved reporting of the range of fisheries resources taken by commercial
fishers, the Crown will be in a better position to monitor catches of those species.
Adequacy Statement
2
This Regulatory Impact Statement has been reviewed by the Ministry of Fisheries
(MFish) Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Committee and is considered to meet the
criteria agreed by Cabinet.
Status Quo and Problem
The Current Situation
3
The taking of aquatic life for commercial purposes is undertaken in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. The key regulatory framework for the specification of
information derived from commercial fishing activities is the Fisheries (Reporting)
Regulations 2001, and the Schedules of reporting codes provided by that regulatory
series. Commercial fishers are required to submit statutory returns on the catch they
have taken in accordance with this framework.
Why Government Action is Needed
4
Commercial fishing is generally able to be undertaken for species subject to the quota
management system (QMS), and for the vast majority of species outside of that
framework by virtue of holding a fishing permit under the Act. However, in the
context of the freshwater environment, the statutory arrangements for managing the
commercial use of some species life stages are currently prescribed in other legislation
(ie, whitebait).
5
Commercial fishers may take some species as a target fishery, or as a bycatch of
existing fishing activities. In late 2004, commercial access to fisheries resources not
managed under the QMS was liberalised. Some commercial fishers have expressed
an interest in the commercial fishing of species not previously fished. The current
proposal does not affect or change the ability of commercial fishers to access fisheries
resources, but simply focuses on the need to ensure that such catch is able to be
recorded accurately for fisheries management purposes.
44
6
MFish is aware that some commercial catch is not being reported given a deficiency
of species codes set out in the Reporting Regulations. The species codes for the
completion of returns have not been reviewed for species found in freshwater since
2001. Commercial fishers are unable to meet their obligations to submit returns
containing information on the catch of various important species. MFish and the
Minister of Fisheries are not able to monitor the sustainable use of commercial fishing
activities in the absence of information on the catch of the variety of species the
subject of the current review.
Objectives
7
The objective of the proposal is to improve the quality of the information reported to
MFish on the catch of a number of species found predominantly in freshwater.
Enabling the collection of commercial catch information will assist fishery interests,
MFish and the Minister in their respective assessment of how the purpose of the Act is
being met. Similarly, decision makers must take account of a number of
environmental and information principles in exercising or performing functions etc
under the Act. The collection of information underpins the appropriate use of
fisheries resources, taking into account the differing values that fishery interests may
have, what may be taken on a sustainable basis, and what other biological interactions
may be affected.
Alternative options
8
There are no alternative options to the status quo and the preferred option which are
considered legally robust or likely to meet the objectives outlined above.
Preferred option
9
MFish’s preferred option is to amend Part 2 of Schedule 3 of the Fisheries (Reporting)
Regulations 2001 (the Reporting Regulations) to clarify and add further species codes
for statutory reporting purposes for commercial fishing.
Impacts
10
Commercial fishers are already required to enter species codes in their returns,
whether these are derived from the Schedule to the Reporting Regulations, or from the
explanatory notes for particular types of return. Inclusion of further species codes to
the Schedules of the Reporting Regulations will ensure that these additional codes are
available for general use, regardless of what type of return a commercial fisher may
be using. At present, the explanatory notes differ between different returns in terms of
the extent of species codes available for use.
Benefits
11
There are advantages to both commercial fishers, FishServe and MFish where the
expectations of the reporting framework are clearly understood. In the case of species
codes for species found in freshwater, once codified in regulation, and set out further
in relevant explanatory notes, these codes will be readily referred to by all concerned.
45
12
The current review considers a reasonably broad range of species found in freshwater.
A comprehensive review on the species codes available for reporting is more efficient
than undertaking repeated reviews each year as further species codes are desired.
Accordingly, future costs to the Crown, some of which are recoverable from the
fishing industry, are able to be avoided.
Costs
13
MFish does not consider that the additional data entries required to be made on returns
will be onerous for commercial fishers, as most commercial fishing operations in the
freshwater environment do not catch a wide variety of species at the one time, and
species codes are already available (although not codified in regulation) for the main
bycatch species taken in the fisheries where these are most likely to be taken.
14
The regulatory amendment will provide greater transparency for commercial fishers
and administrators, and therefore should reduce compliance costs over the medium
term. There will be a need in the short term to ensure that commercial fishers are
informed of the availability of the species codes in regulation, and draw their attention
to updated explanatory notes that accompany returns.
Implementation and review
15
MFish proposes that the amendments to the Reporting Regulations, if approved, will
come into effect in June 2009. As a consequence of any regulatory amendment, the
chief executive of MFish will also review the explanatory notes accompanying
relevant returns in order that they are consistent with the regulatory amendment.
16
Affected parties will be notified of changes through the MFish external website,
through the approved service delivery organisation FishServe that undertakes registry
and data entry services on behalf of MFish, and through contact with relevant
Commercial Stakeholder Organisations and representative commercial fishers.
17
MFish will periodically monitor the changes in the reporting of commercial catch
through planning and related research initiatives undertaken by MFish in collaboration
with fishery interests. On-going communication between commercial fishers,
FishServe and MFish fishery officers will further ensure that compliance with the
public policy objective is achieved.
Consultation
18
MFish has consulted commercial fishers who sought advice on how to report the catch
of additional species of aquatic life found in freshwater, in addition to commercial
fishers involved in the eel fishery. This latter group of commercial fishers takes a
range of species of aquatic life as a bycatch of their fishing activities focused on eels.
More generally, representatives of tangata whenua, commercial, recreational and
environmental interests were consulted during September 2008.
46
REVIEW OF OBSERVER SERVICES FEES – INITIAL
POSITION PAPER
Executive Summary
19
During late-2007 to early-2008 the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries
(MFish) consulted on a range of measures aimed at better managing the risks of
foreign charter vessels (FCVs) operating in New Zealand waters. The Chief Executive
approved the management measures on 12 June 2008.
20
One of these measures consulted on, was the proposal to introduce a risk-based
approach to Observer coverage on FCVs 21 i.e. higher Observer coverage, paid for by
the FCV operators, for higher risk vessels. Stakeholder submissions to the FCV Initial
Position Paper (IPP) generally supported this approach. Accordingly, provision needs
to be made for these charges in the Regulations. The current charges are no longer a
fair reflection of the costs of observers. Consequently, it is also timely to review
Observer charges generally.
21
This paper proposes that the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 (the
Regulations) be amended to set a new flat daily rate for all Observer services that are
not funded through cost recovery levies.
22
The Observer programme is set up under Part 12 of the Fisheries Act (the Act) 22 to
collect reliable and accurate information for fisheries research, fisheries management
and fisheries enforcement. The costs of the programme are recovered through a mix of
cost recovery levies under Part 14 of the Act and transaction fees for specific services.
23
As stated above, the current process has two cost recovery systems: Levy orders and
transaction fees. The transaction fees are direct fees payable by the operator of a given
vessel receiving an Observer service, of which there are currently three in regulations
(supervision of conversion factors, dumping at sea and transhipments), created in
2001.
24
Currently the Regulations set transaction fees for supervision of conversion factors,
transhipments and dumping at sea. The listed fees no longer cover the costs for these
services and it is proposed that these fees be revised to be more in line with the actual
cost of providing the services. The proposal is to move to a flat daily fee.
25
Charges for other Observer services such as coverage for High Seas Fishing including
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)
and activities authorised by special permits are set as conditions on permits. It is
proposed that the provision for all fees for these Observer services be also set out in
one place in the Regulations.
21
See Appendix 2 for description of the risk based approach.
In this IPP section references and references to “the Act” are references to the Fisheries Act 1996 and to
sections in that Act unless otherwise stated.
22
47
The Issue
Existing fee structure for Observer services
26
Most Observer coverage is provided as part of the general research and monitoring
programme. The cost of this Observer coverage is recovered through Cost Recovery
Levies. Some specific Observer services fall outside the general programme and are
funded by individual permit holders or vessel operators. These specific Observer
services (in addition to supervision of conversion factors, transhipments and dumping)
are:
•
Benthic Protected Area Fishing (the Fisheries (Benthic Protected Area)
Regulations 2007, Reg 9 (c));
•
Special Permit Observer Coverage -s 97(5);
•
High Seas Permit Observer coverage (this encompasses the different Regional
Fisheries Management Organisations that require Observer coverage) 23-s 113K
(1)(m);
•
Industry Requested Observer coverage.
27
It is proposed that charges for all these services be added to the Regulations.
28
To date, cost recovery for these extra services has been based on actual costs, through
transaction fees.
29
Changing the Regulations to add the relevant fee structure and to increase Observer
fees is the only way to appropriately meet the relevant management objectives (i.e.
fully recovering costs and targeting costs to the most appropriate person).
30
There are two management objectives intended to be covered by the proposals in this
paper. First is to create a fee structure to ensure all fees charged are set out in
regulations. Second is to increase Observer fees to ensure Observer costs are 100%
recovered through transaction fees. The current transaction fees for the services listed
in the Regulations have not increased since 2001, yet costs have increased 30%,
creating a deficit. The intention is to amend the Regulations so that they reflect the
true cost of delivering Observer services.
31
The risk of not updating the Regulations is twofold. Firstly, the risk of not putting a
fee structure in place for the proposed (and currently provided) Observer services is
that it lacks the clarity and transparency associated with regulations. Secondly, by not
updating the fees for Observer services, part of the costs of these services will be
transferred to other members of the fishing industry through Cost Recovery Levies.
32
An outline of the different activities and the fees that will be applied is set out in
Appendix 3.
23
CCAMLR (Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources), South Pacific Regional
Fisheries Organisation (SPRFMO), Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)
48
Risk-based approach to observer coverage on Foreign Charter Vessels
33
MFish proposes to seek regulatory change to enable MFish to directly recover from
vessel operators the cost of additional Observer coverage for “high-risk” and
“medium-risk” FCVs.
34
Presently, Schedule 2, Part 4 of the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations
enables MFish to charge individual vessel operators transaction fees for supervision of
transhipments, conversion factors and dumping at sea. The schedule does not provide
scope for costs to be recovered for Observer coverage on high-risk and medium-risk
FCVs from the operators of those vessels.
35
If Schedule 2 is not amended to allow recovery of costs from those FCV operators, the
cost of this additional Observer coverage will fall on quota owners under general cost
recovery levies. MFish considers that it is appropriate to place the cost of this
Observer coverage directly on the operators of high risk category FCV vessels.
Placing the cost on FCV operators would therefore be consistent with The Treasury’s
“Guidelines for setting costs in the public sector”.
Summary of options
Option 1 – Status Quo
36
The status quo would be to retain the current structure and content of the Regulations
and keep the transaction fees at their current rate.
37
If the status quo is retained it would lead to three major issues:
38
•
the cost of additional Observer coverage of high-risk and medium-risk FCVs
would be included in the general costs of the Observer programme, and so
would be shared by quota owners generally;
•
the increasing cost of Observer coverage would result in specific transaction
charges not funding the activity that the charge relates to; and
•
the MFish Observer programme would not recover 100% of the cost of
Observer services.
The impact of the status quo would be maintaining the current system where fees are
set out in different places, creating complexity and losing a transparency gain.
Option 2 – Amend the Commercial Fishing Regulations (MFish preferred
option)
39
MFish’s preferred option is to amend the Regulations to:
•
•
Introduce fee structures for Observer coverage for all the current and anticipated
services that Observers provide;
Revoke the current fee structure of $1971.55 dollars for the first day and $457.78
for every subsequent day of Observer coverage (sections 13 - 15 of Part 4,
Schedule 2 of the Regulations);
49
•
40
Introduce a new, flat daily rate of $571.65 (excluding GST) per Observer. 24
This is the preferred option because:
•
•
•
the cost of additional Observer coverage for “high-risk” and “medium-risk” FCVs
would be passed to the operators of those vessels;
it allows for higher recovery of costs through increased transaction fees (rather
than using levies);
of the associated benefits of having transparency and clarity. It should be noted
that only trips longer than six days would incur a greater fee for the service
receiver.
Rationale for Management Options
Unified fee structure with flat daily rate
41
In regards to regulating to establish a unified fee structure (Option 2), the option of
regulation is being proposed because the current practice lacks the transparency
desired in relation to charging of fees.
42
In regards to changing and increasing the fees for Observer services, MFish’s
Statement of Intent states that one of the Observer Programme’s management
objectives is to remain cost neutral. This means that all costs not recovered directly
through transaction fees must be recouped through the Cost Recovery Levy process,
meaning all quota holders in the relevant fishery must pay a levy. This is unfair on
those quota holders who did not require or were not required to receive any Observer
coverage.
43
Currently the Regulations set transaction fees for supervision of conversion factors,
transhipments and dumping at sea. The current charging system for the first two of
these involves a graduated fee. On the first day of an observed trip the fee is
(generally) $1,821.55 (excluding GST). For each subsequent day the fee is $307.00
per day. The fee for supervising dumping at sea is $22.50 for each occasion. These
fees no longer cover the costs for these services and it is proposed that these fees be
revised to be more in line with the actual cost of providing the services. The proposal
is to move to a flat daily fee.
44
An assessment of the current fees charged and the new proposed structure has
revealed that the new fee structure would increase the average transaction fees
charged by the Observer Programme. When the fees were set in the 2001 Regulations,
the average fishing trip was significantly shorter. Analysis has determined the current
average trip length for which an Observer is required is 31 days. 25
45
Although there are different levels of fees currently based upon whether
accommodation is provided for Observers, the most common figures are provided
below in Figure 1, compared with the proposed new regime.
24
This proposed figure is for the 09/10 year. The figures in the graph in paragraph 32 and the table in the
appendices is for the current (08/09) fishing year.
25
In port unloads last 1-3 days, Conversion factor coverage is 21 days, CCAMLR trips average 83 days and
ORH 1 trips are averaging 21 days.
50
Comparison of Current and Proposed Regime for
Observer Fees
20000
18000
16000
Fees ($)
14000
12000
Current regime
P
10000
New regime
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Day
Note: figures are in dollars and exclude GST.
46
For the average trip duration of 31 days, the proposed regime would charge $6000.05
more to the service receiver. Increased transaction fees (which are targeted) would
reduce the cost of Observer coverage that is recouped through Cost Recovery Levies,
which is considered to be a fairer outcome to quota holders.
Funding additional Observer coverage on FCVs
47
The Chief Executive has agreed that Observers should play an important role as part
of a new range of measures aimed at reducing the risk of certain FCVs operating in
New Zealand waters. The role of the Observer on medium and high-risk FCVs would
be different from the current Observer role, in that there would be a focus on auditing
of the vessel’s activities against the Act and regulations because of an assessment of
the risk posed by the particular vessel. The Observer placement in these circumstances
will be a condition of vessel registration imposed by the MFish Chief executive under
s 103(4) of the Act. The risk-based approach to Observer coverage was consulted on
in the IPP entitled “Management Measures to Mitigate the Risks from Foreign Charter
Vessels Operating in the New Zealand EEZ”, and the relevant section of the IPP is
attached as Appendix 2.
48
Currently, if MFish wishes to place Observers on vessels for compliance reasons, the
cost of the coverage must be recovered through levies. Annually, the MFish Observer
programme plans for a specified number of Observer hours to be allocated for
compliance purposes. The cost of the Observer hours is recovered through levies.
51
MFish believes that the current compliance allocation is not adequate to provide
coverage for the anticipated requirements on medium and high-risk FCV, as the
allowance must be spread across all vessels (i.e. FCVs and domestic vessels). In
addition, the costs are not targeted to the identified receiver of the service (the
operator), but are spread amongst the quota owners.
49
MFish would prefer to recover costs directly from the FCV operator. The ability of
MFish to monitor medium and high-risk FCV activities at sea will create an incentive
for FCV operators to abide by the Act and regulations.
50
Under the status quo, MFish would be unable to implement the risk-based approach to
Observer coverage. It is therefore necessary to amend the Regulations to specify a
specific pricing regime for placement on medium and high-risk FCVs.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status quo
Impact – Existing fee structure for Observer services
51
The impact of the status quo has been that listed revenue from the supervision of
conversion factors is now 30% below the cost of delivering this service.
52
If the status quo is maintained, negative financial position reporting would continue
and the shortfall in revenue through transactional charges would need to be averaged
out over levies and consulted on through the end of the financial year balancing
process.
53
Continuation of the existing fee structure would increasingly deliver a deficit in
revenue in the areas of supervision currently listed in the regulations.
Costs – Existing fee structure for Observer services
54
In regards to the current transaction charges, the main cost would be a continuing
deficit in the running costs of the Programme, which would continue to be met by
quota holders in the form of levies.
Impact – Existing fee structure for Observer coverage on FCVs
55
The status quo would retain the existing fee structure for Observer services, with no
provision for Observer coverage specific to FCVs.
56
The principal impact of retaining the status quo would be the inability of MFish to
place Observers on all medium and high-risk FCVs for the purpose of auditing FCV
performance against the Act and regulations without transferring that cost to other
members of the fishing industry.
Costs - Existing fee structure for Observer coverage on FCVs
57
FCV operators are currently only being charged transaction fees for a very specific
range of services. Services that fit outside of that range are covered through cost
52
recovery levies that are charged to quota owners. The status quo would therefore
retain the cost of placing Observers on high and medium-risk FCVs with quota
holders, when the costs should be charged directly to the FCV vessel operator.
Benefits – Existing fee structure for Observer services
58
There are very few merits in maintaining the status quo option other than a pecuniary
advantage to the recipient of the listed services.
Option 2 – Amend the Commercial Fishing Regulations
Impact– Unified fee structure with flat daily rate
59
The main impacts of Option 2 would be the clear and equitable recovery of Observer
costs and the recovery of an amount of costs appropriate for the value of the service
received.
60
There would be no additional enforcement strategies required above what currently
exists for fees payable by service receivers.
61
This option would not overlap with existing rules. The existing fee structure (ss 13, 14
and 15 of Schedule 2, part 4 of the Regulations) would be revoked and a new one
inserted, with the new fees accompanying it.
Costs – Unified fee structure with flat daily rate
62
There are no obvious costs associated with this option apart from the minor costs
attached to developing regulatory documents and informing vessel operators about the
changed costs.
Benefits – Unified fee structure with flat daily rate
63
This option will allow the Observer Programme to meet its management objective of
cost neutrality in each service it delivers. It also provides greater transparency than the
existing fee structure.
Impact - Funding additional Observer coverage on FCVs
64
Currently, Observer coverage is required to meet fisheries or conservation needs as
specified by MFish (e.g. if scientific data collection is required for a given
fishery/species), or for reasons specified in the Act (i.e. supervision of transhipments,
dumping or conversion factors). In addition to this, the Observer programme plans for
a limited number of compliance hours, in order to monitor the activities of fishers for
compliance purposes. FCV operators are currently only required to take Observers on
board if their FCV fits into these categories.
65
Option 2 reflects the decision made to link Observer coverage to the status (i.e. length
of time in New Zealand) and performance of the FCV. Linking risk status of FCVs to
performance of the vessel and vessel personnel (i.e. adherence of the operator and
vessel crew to the Act and regulations, as specified in conditions of registration
53
consent) is aimed at creating incentives for FCV operators and crew to act in
accordance with the law.
66
MFish foresees that the long-term impact of a cost structure that reflects the riskbased approach would only be high for vessels that continually breach the Act and
regulations. MFish anticipates that FCV operators who demonstrate adherence to the
law in the long-term would have the same Observer costs as they do currently (i.e. for
low risk FCV, Observer coverage would be limited to services that can be recovered
through levies).
67
It is not possible to determine how many current FCVs would be affected by the riskbased approach. For example, it is not possible for MFish to determine the proportion
of registered FCVs that would fit into the respective risk categories, as the risk
category of individual FCVs will change over time.
Costs - Funding additional Observer coverage on FCVs
68
Annually, there are between 20 and 40 FCVs registered in New Zealand (either new
registrations or renewals). Of these, there are typically 3 or less new FCV arrivals. It
is not possible to determine the extent of senior crew changes discussed in the
medium risk category (see Appendix 2 for details).
69
Many of the FCVs currently operating in New Zealand have MFish Observers on
board. As discussed above, the Observer coverage is based on the priorities of the
Observer programme. The Observer coverage on these vessels is either paid for by
quota owners (for the purpose of scientific data collection for fisheries and
conservation services), the permit holder (for supervision of transhipments or
dumping at sea and as required by conditions on special permits and high seas
permits), or the vessel operator (for supervision of conversion factors). A limited
number of hours are allocated for the purpose of auditing and monitoring vessel
activities. The cost of these hours is recovered through levies.
70
Option 2 would allow that for all Observer placements for the purpose of monitoring
medium and high-risk FCVs, the cost of Observer coverage would be recovered from
the vessel operator (for medium-risk FCVs it is presently intended that the costs be
charged directly to the vessel operator unless the Observer coverage can be facilitated
as part of the normal fishery-specific Observer coverage requirement. The MFish
Observer Programme would determine when this is possible).
71
The risk-based approach would increase costs for those operators whose FCVs fit in
the medium and high-risk categories of the risk-based approach.
Benefits - Funding additional Observer coverage on FCVs
72
The benefits of Option 2 are that MFish would be able to recover the costs of
increased Observer coverage from the most appropriate people. The risk-based
approach to Observer coverage is an integral part of a wider range of measures
recently signed off by the Chief Executive. Failure to secure full Observer coverage
on these FCVs would seriously compromise the ability of MFish to monitor the
activity of FCVs against the range of measures MFish is currently implementing. This
54
would also compromise the ability of MFish to enforce the conditions of registration
consent imposed by the Chief Executive.
73
MFish requires a FCV-specific fee schedule in the Regulations to provide legal
justification for MFish to recover fees from medium and high-risk FCV operators.
Other Management Controls
74
There are no other relevant management controls to consider, given the Act and
current fisheries regulations and the requirements thereof relating to collection of fees.
55
APPENDIX 1 - STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
75
Section 5 (a): Decision-makers are required to act in a manner consistent with New
Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing including the Law of the Sea
and the Fish Stocks agreement as well as regional fishery management agreements.
MFish considers that both options are consistent with New Zealand’s international
obligations relating to fishing.
76
Section 5 (b): Decision-makers must also act in a manner consistent with the
provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. MFish
considers that both options are consistent with the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. MFish considers that both options
are consistent with these provisions.
77
Section 9 (a) and (b): It is unlikely that either of the management options proposed
would materially affect any associated or dependent species or the biological diversity
of the aquatic environment.
78
Section 9 (c): It is unlikely that either of the management options proposed would
affect relevant habitats of particular significance to fisheries management.
79
Section 10: Decision-makers are required to take account of the information
principles which direct that decisions are based on the best available information, that
any uncertainty in the information be considered and that caution is taken when
information is uncertain or unreliable. The information principles also prescribe that
an absence or lack of information should not be used as a reason for postponing or
failing to take any measure to achieve the purpose of the Act.
80
Section 297 (1) (m), (i)-(iii): provides that the Governor-General may make
regulations prescribing:
•
•
•
•
81
The matters in respect of which fees or charges are payable;
The amounts of the fees or charges, or the methods or rates (including hourly
rates) by which they are to be assessed;
The persons liable to pay;
The circumstances in which the Minister of Fisheries or Chief Executive may
remit or waive payment.
The Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001, Schedule 2, Part 4:
contains the present regulatory fee structure and fee amounts to be charged.
56
APPENDIX 2 – RISK- BASED APPROACH TO
OBSERVER COVERAGE
82
MFish is proposing to implement a risk based approach to determine the appropriate
level of Observer coverage onboard FCVs. For some vessels this new approach is
likely to result in a greater level of Observer coverage than exists currently.
83
Under this proposal three risk profiles (high-risk, medium-risk and low-risk) will be
used to characterise FCVs. When a FCV is registered it will be assigned to one of
these risk profiles which will determine the level of required Observer coverage. The
table below provides an overview of each risk profile.
Criteria
High-risk
All new FCVs to New
Zealand
Medium-risk
Existing vessels, which
have previously been
classified as low risk,
seeking re-registration
and where issues have
been identified
Low-risk
Low risk vessels which have
been through the
high/medium/low hierarchy
and are not deemed to pose
a risk by virtue of their FCV
status
Existing FCVs but where
senior crew have
changed (master/factory
manager)
Low risk vessels seeking reregistration where the
permit holder and vessel
operator details remain
unchanged, where the
senior crew have NZ
fishing experience and
where no issues have been
identified during the reregistration assessment.
Observed as part of the
normal fishery specific
Observer requirements
If there are issues identified
the vessel will be
reclassified as either
medium or high risk
New vessels that have
successfully completed
the initial two observed
trips
Actions
Standard
Full Observer
coverage (up to 4
trips.)
If after 4 trips there are
outstanding issues
relating to the vessel
complying with the
conditions of
registration then
registration may be
revoked
Vessel must have one of
the next 2 trips observed.
If there are no issues
identified then the vessel
is classified as low risk
If there are issues
identified the vessel will
be reclassified as high
risk
If there are no issues
identified the vessel
will be classified as
medium risk
57
High risk vessels
84
All FCVs new to New Zealand will be classed as high-risk vessels. Vessels assigned a
high-risk profile will be required to have their first two trips observed. If during these
two trips no issues are identified in terms of the operation of the vessel or with the
vessel adhering to the conditions of its registration, then the vessel will be reclassified as medium-risk. If a breach occurs or if any events during the two observed
trips cause MFish to consider the vessel should remain as high-risk then the vessel
will be observed for a further two trips. MFish will advise vessel operators of the
reasons behind the decision to retain the high risk status for their FCV.
85
If no breaches are detected during the second two trips then the vessel may be
classified as a medium-risk and the Observer coverage requirement for medium-risk
vessels will apply. However, if following the four Observer trips there are still
outstanding issues regarding the vessel’s ability to meet the conditions of registration
then registration revocation will be considered.
86
Any vessel which has previously been classed as either a medium-risk or a low-risk
vessel and where there have been breaches of the conditions of registration consent or
areas of concern have been identified, will be re-classified as a high risk vessel and
will be required to accept MFish approved Observers for their next two full length
fishing trips.
87
To ensure all tows and factory activity onboard the vessel are observed MFish will
require high-risk vessels to accept two Observers for each trip.
Medium risk vessels
88
A vessel will be assigned to a medium-risk profile if it has had two observed trips
completed (as a high-risk vessel) without incident. Medium-risk vessels will be
required to have one of their next two full length trips observed.
89
Vessels will also be characterized as medium risk if:
•
A vessel is seeking re-registration and has previously been characterised as low
risk but where MFish has identified some minor concerns with the vessel
operation following an assessment of the registration application;
•
A low-risk vessel has a crew change at senior level.
90
If during an observed trip onboard a medium-risk vessel, a breach of the registration
conditions occurs or a possible breach of the Act occurs then the vessel will be
reclassified as a high risk vessel. The vessel will be required to have its next two trips
observed as per the requirements for a high-risk vessel.
91
If no issues or breaches are identified the vessel will be classified as low-risk.
Low risk vessels
92
Low risk vessels are not required to have additional Observer coverage beyond the
normal fishery-specific Observer coverage requirements. A vessel will be classified as
58
low-risk if no issues or potential breaches are detected during the vessels’ status as a
medium risk.
93
A vessel seeking re-registration, which has previously been categorised as low-risk
and where the permit holder and vessel operator details remain unchanged, where the
senior crew has New Zealand fishing experience and where no issues have been
identified during the re-registration assessment, will remain classified as a low risk
vessel.
94
An assessment of a low-risk vessel’s performance against the conditions of
registration will still occur through normal Observer coverage or through fishery
officer inspections. Breaches of these conditions will mean the vessel is reclassified as
either high or medium-risk depending on the extent of the breach.
Factors that will determine a vessel’s risk status
95
MFish expects that in the majority of cases a vessel’s risk profile will move from
high-risk to low-risk over the course of the registration period.
96
MFish will consider evidence of a vessel’s compliance with the following factors in
determining if a vessel should be reclassified from high-risk to a medium or low-risk
classification:
•
Full compliance with the pre-trip Observer personal safety check.
•
Continued compliance with the Observer accommodation standard.
•
Acceptable auditable performance against industry operating
procedures26.
•
Assessment of a vessel’s performance against the catch plan (provided
during registration)
•
Appropriate adherence to environmental mitigation measures during
the trip e.g. deployment of required bird mitigation devices.
•
Compliance with the general requirements of the Fisheries Act 1996
and supporting regulations. Breaches to the Act will be addressed
through the normal process however MFish considers that the
existence of such concerns would mean the vessel poses a higher risk
and should be classified as a high-risk vessel.
Cost of additional Observer coverage
97
MFish proposes using the following charging arrangements to fund this additional
FCV-specific Observer coverage:
26
MFish is currently auditing vessel performance against a number of the voluntary management initiatives
developed by industry – to date vessels performance are audited against the vessel management plans, marine
mammal operating procedures and the hoki operating procedure.
59
98
The cost of Observer coverage on those vessels classed as high risk will be charged
directly to the vessel operator. MFish does not consider the level of Observer
coverage required for high-risk vessels can be undertaken as part of a routine
Observer trip.
99
Cost of Observer coverage onboard medium-risk vessels will be charged directly to
the vessel operator unless the Observer coverage can be facilitated as part of the
normal fishery-specific Observer coverage requirement. The MFish Observer
Programme will determine when this is possible.
100
Currently the typical cost of a day’s Observer coverage is $555 (exclusive of GST)
per day.
101
MFish considers this risk based approach will be more costly to those operators that
continue to pose a risk to the integrity of the management regime and the health and
safety of MFish staff and contractors. However, this approach is likely to be more cost
effective than the current Observer regime for those operators whose vessels are
classed as low-risk vessels, as some of the normal fishery-specific Observer coverage
may be filled by medium-risk vessels as a priority.
60
APPENDIX 3 – PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE
•
Supervision of conversion factors, “high-risk” and “medium-risk” Foreign
Charter Vessel coverage, Benthic Protected Area Fishing, industry requested
Observer coverage, High Seas Fishing Permit and Special Permit Observer
coverage.
o The fee payable in respect of Observer coverage in these circumstances
is $571.65 (excluding GST) per Observer per day.
o The fee is payable by the operator of the vessel concerned
•
Supervision of transhipments, vessel hold inspections and in port unloads
o The fee payable in respect of Observer coverage for the transhipment
of fish in circumstances referred to in s 227(1) of the 1996 Act is, for the
first 24-hour period or part thereof a 24-hour is $571.65 (plus GST) per
Observer per day.
o The fee is payable by the holder of the fishing permit under which the
fish were taken.
o If more than 1 person is liable to pay a fee under this clause in respect
of the period during which an Observer or Observers are on board a vessel,
the Chief Executive may divide the total fee payable between those
persons on a proportionate basis, having regard to the percentage of total
transhipment hours taken up by each relevant transhipment
o For the purposes of this clause, a transhipment at sea or in port unload
is deemed to occur from the commencement of the first sling from a
catcher vessel to the completion of the last sling from the same catcher
vessel.
•
Supervision of dumping at sea
o For each occasion on which fish are returned to, or abandoned in, the
sea, the fee payable for Observer or Observers, as authorised under s
72(5) of the Act is $28.00 (excluding GST)
o A fee payable under this clause is payable by the holder of the fishing
permit under which the fish were taken.
61
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT - REVIEW OF
OBSERVER SERVICES FEES
Executive summary
1.
It is proposed that the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 (the
Regulations) be amended to set a new, flat daily rate for all observer services that are
not funded through cost recovery levies, as well as adding in new services not
currently prescribed by the regulations. This will include significantly increased
coverage on medium-risk and high-risk foreign charter vessels (FCVs).
Adequacy statement
2.
This RIS has been approved by MFish’s internal RIA Steering Committee and found
to be adequate.
Status quo and Problem
3.
Currently, the amount charged for Observer services is not sufficient to fully recover
costs. Additionally there are new services being provided which need to be prescribed
in regulations, including coverage of FCVs.
4.
The preferred option is to update the fee for Observer services, change the Observer
coverage on FCVs and the amount recoverable from FCV operators. This is the only
way to ensure the stated management objectives of 100% recovery of costs through
direct charging. Current levies do not allow for the recovery of the required amount
since the figure prescribed in regulations has not changed since 2001.
Objectives
5.
The key fishery management objective for the relevant stocks is:
•
Management of the resource is credible.
Preferred option
6.
MFish’s preferred option is to:
•
Introduce revised fee structures for Observer coverage for all the current and
anticipated services Observers provide;
•
Revoke the current fee structure of $χ dollars for the first day and $γ for every
subsequent day for Observer coverage (sections 13 - 15 of Part 4, Schedule 2 of
the Regulations);
62
•
Introduce a new, constant daily rate of $571.65 (excluding GST) per Observer. 27
This fee is based on the 2008-09 actual transaction fee of $555 per coverage day,
plus a 3% inflationary adjustment for the July 09 implementation of the propose
regulatory amendment.
7.
This is the preferred option because the cost of additional Observer coverage for
“high-risk” and “medium-risk” FCVs will be passed to the operators of those vessels.
Also, it allows for higher recovery of costs through increased transaction fees (rather
than using levies) and because of the associated benefits of having transparency and
clarity. It should be noted that only trips longer than six days will incur a greater fee
for the service receiver.
8.
This proposal does not involve any additional risk for the Ministry.
9.
The amended cost structure will not require FishServe to process information or
clients any different apart from amending amounts in systems and invoices. This will
help to minimise operational and compliance costs.
Implementation and review
10.
This proposal, will be given effect on 1 July 2009. It will be consulted on externally
on 1 September 2008, and sent to EDC on 4 March 2009.
11.
Affected parties will be notified by Gazette notice and notification from FishServe
that their Observer invoices are going to be raised.
12.
The public policy objective sought to be completed under this paper (cost recovery
through direct charging) will be accomplished by standard debt recovery mechanisms,
mainly FishServe debt recovery practice. This means there will be minimal additional
compliance costs.
13.
Monitoring of this proposal will be done through the Observer Services group’s
financial accounting practices to ensure costs are now fully recovered.
Consultation
14.
27
The IPP was released for general public consultation on 1 September 2008, through
the Ministry’s website.
This proposed figure is for the 09/10 year.
63
CORRECTION OF COORDINATES AND DESCRIPTION
ERRORS IN SOUTHLAND & SUB-ANTARCTIC AREA
REGULATIONS
Executive Summary
1
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) has identified a number of errors in the area
descriptions used in fisheries regulations. MFish proposes to redress these historical
inaccuracies by amending such incorrect descriptions. The Challenger Fisheries
Management Area was the first area to undergo such a review during the last
regulatory round and MFish now proposes to review the Southland and Sub-Antarctic
Area regulations. This step is being undertaken in conjunction with earlier changes to
regulatory drafting procedures that were aimed at ensuring that future area
descriptions were fully accurate.
2
In total, 26 errors were identified in the Fisheries (Southland & Sub-Antarctic Areas
Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1991 and the Fisheries (Southland & Sub-Antarctic
Areas Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986. The majority of these errors were
relatively minor but four errors were deemed significant enough to merit the full
consultative process and have, therefore, been included in this Initial Position Paper
(IPP). The areas in question are:
i)
Sprat Point
ii)
Abut Head
iii)
Awarua Point
iv)
Long Point and Heretanewha Point
3
The other errors will also be put forward to the Minister for correction in unison with
those being proposed in this paper. Both minor and major changes made to these
regulations will be communicated to fishers to ensure that the best and most recent
information is readily available.
4
The affected closures and restrictions were previously approved by Cabinet to achieve
a desired objective, which has now been compromised by incomplete or inaccurate
area descriptions. The current level of uncertainty has resulted in less than optimal
management of these areas. The problem is also a threat to the credibility of the
fisheries management regime, needlessly hindering the Ministry’s strategy of
maximising voluntary compliance and maintaining an effective deterrent.
5
Two options are being proposed for consideration by the Minister; to retain the status
quo or amend the errors identified. Of those two options, only the latter addresses any
of the concerns described earlier in a meaningful way.
64
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
6
This IPP has been deemed not significant and has been reviewed by MFish.
Therefore, a Regulatory Impact Statement was not necessary.
7
For more information on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements and the
meaning of the word ‘significant’ with reference to an Initial Position Paper, please
refer to the Ministry of Economic Development website www.med.govt.nz.
The Issue
8
Coordinates used in many area definitions are incorrect, which is undermining the
purpose of the restrictions as approved by Cabinet. The errors have also affected the
Ministry of Fisheries’ ability to enforce these regulations effectively. The restrictions
address a number of fisheries management issues from sustainability to allocation.
9
The Fisheries (Southland & Sub-Antarctic Areas Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1991
and the Fisheries (Southland & Sub-Antarctic Areas Commercial Fishing)
Regulations 1986 contain a total of 26 of these errors. The 26 errors identified vary
greatly in size with only four errors deemed significant enough to warrant
consultation. All of the major errors raised in this IPP belong to the Commercial
Regulations. The remaining errors have been judged minor and technical in nature
and will consequently be amended directly at the Final Advice stage. Any changes,
whether significant or minor, will be publicised to keep fishers informed and up to
date.
10
Correcting these errors will ensure that the individual goals of each affected closure
are achieved and the credibility of the overall fisheries management regime is
maintained. The affected closures were approved by Cabinet and put in place to
address issues relating to sustainability and allocation. The current situation does not
allow MFish to properly manage these closures since they inaccurately represent the
areas for which regulations were intended. The inconsistencies present in area
definitions also create uncertainty and difficulties for prosecutions that involve these
areas.
11
There are a number of risks involved in allowing the existing situation to remain;
primarily those involving deliberate exploitation of a weakness in the regulations.
Some of the closures described by the coordinates in question were put in place to
protect ecologically sensitive areas that require the full protection of the regulations.
Any encroachment has the potential to seriously affect these vulnerable areas.
12
Many changes have been made to the Ministry’s operational practices to avoid further
errors in future regulations and MFish is now seeking the Minister’s approval to
correct existing faults on an area by area basis. The discussion in this proposal is
limited to the four major errors in the Southland & Sub-Antarctic Areas.
65
Summary of Options
13
The following two options are proposed at this time:
Option 1 – Status Quo
14
Retain the incorrect area descriptions and coordinates as they currently appear in the
regulations.
Option 2 – Corrective Action [MFish Preferred Option]
15
Correct the area descriptions that follow:
Sprat Point
16
Regulation 6(b) of the Fisheries (Southland & Sub-Antarctic Areas Commercial
Fishing) Regulations 1986 (the Commercial Regulations), which deals with the
possession of oysters taken from within the waters of Paterson inlet, provides
incorrect coordinates to describe Sprat Point on Bench Island.
17
The latitude given is one degree off and has placed the point more than one hundred
kilometres from its actual location. The incorrect coordinates (at 47°54.2'S and
168°14.4'E) should read at 46°54.2'S and 168°14.4'E. The revised definition follows:
66
6
Closed areas
No [[commercial fisher]] shall take any oyster or have in his or her possession any oyster
taken from the following waters:
(b)
Those waters of Paterson Inlet lying inside a straight line drawn from Ackers Point
(at 46°53.80'S and 168°09.80'E) to Sprat Point on Bench Island (at 46°54.20'S and
168°14.40'E); then along the mean high-water mark to the southwesternmost point on
Bench Island (at 46°54.90'S and 168°13.60'E); then by straight line to East Cape on
Stewart Island (at 47°00.90'S and 168°13.80'E); then along the mean high-water mark to
the point of commencement:
Abut Head
18
The interpretation section (regulation 2) of the Commercial Regulations uses incorrect
coordinates to define the location of Abut Head in its description of the Southland
Concession Area. This definition is, in turn, applied throughout the Commercial
Regulations in relation to the concession on undersized female rock lobsters. The
current coordinates used in the definition are roughly three kilometres away from the
physical location of Abut Head.
19
The revised definition should read:
Southland Concession Area means the southern rock lobster fishery bounded—
(a)
By the shoreline commencing in a generally southerly direction from Abut
Head (at 43°06.52'S and 170°15.80'E) to Long Point (at 46°34.80'S and
169°35.00'E); and
67
20
(b)
By a straight line from Long Point on a true compass bearing of 135°; and
(c)
By a straight line from Abut Head on a true compass bearing of 315°; and
(d)
By the outer limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone of New Zealand:
This would place the point closer to its true location and bring the definition in line
with the existing description found in the Land Information New Zealand Place
Names database.
Awarua Point
21
Awarua Point is used to describe the PAU5A quota management area in regulation 3D
of the Commercial Regulations but the coordinates given are approximately 1km
away from the true location of the point. Awarua Point is also described in the
Fisheries Act 1996 in its definition of the Southland Fisheries Management Area and
the description provided there is a clear improvement on the current situation. In the
interest of consistency and clarity we propose to change the definition in the
Commercial Regulations to match those found in the Fisheries Act.
22
The revised regulation should read:
3D
Restrictions on fishing in paua quota management areas
(1)
No [[commercial fisher]] shall take paua from more than one of the
following quota management areas during the course of any fishing trip:
68
(a)
Quota management area PAU 5A—Fiordland: All New Zealand fisheries
waters within the Southland Fishery management Area enclosed by a line
commencing at Awarua Point on the west coast of the South Island at 44°15.60'S
and 168°03.10'E and proceeding due west to the outer boundary of the exclusive
economic zone at a point at 44°16.00'S and 162°13.00'E; then proceeding in a
generally southerly direction to a point at 49°00.00'S and 161°28.00'E; then
proceeding due east to a point at 49°00.00'S and 166°05.00'E; then proceeding in a
general north-easterly direction to the western bank of the Waiau River at
46°11.60'S and 167°36.85'E; then proceeding in a generally westerly and northerly
direction along the mean high water mark to the point of commencement.
Long Point and Heretanewha Point
23
The tailing of rock lobsters at sea is permitted within a defined area that uses Long
and Heretanewha Points as its primary descriptors. Both these points are over a
kilometre away from their actual locations on land.
24
In the case of Long Point, a better description can be found in the definition of the
Southland Concession Area of the same Commercial Regulations. Once again in the
interest of consistency and clarity we suggest that this definition be used in both
regulations.
69
25
The revised regulations should read:
5
Tailing at sea permitted in specified area
(1)
Notwithstanding [regulation 42 of the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations
2001], it shall be lawful for the holder of a current southern rock lobster controlled fishery
licence to tail at sea in the uncooked state any rock lobster taken from that part of the sea
lying seaward of the mean high-water mark between a line following a true compass
bearing of 135° from Irihuka (Long Point) (at 46°34.66'S and 169°35.10'E) to the outer
boundary of the exclusive economic zone; then along that boundary to meet a line
following a true compass bearing of 315° from the south of Bruce Bay (Heretanewha
Point) at 43°35.36'S and 169°33.38'E to the outer boundary of the exclusive economic
zone.
Rationale for Management Options
26
MFish has made a concerted effort to identify all coordinate or area description errors
that currently exist within all Amateur and Commercial Regulations. This was done
in conjunction with measures aimed at improving the quality of the process to define
future regulated areas. This IPP provides an opportunity for the Minister to address
the significant errors found within the Southland & Sub-Antarctic Areas Commercial
Regulations.
27
The Southland & Sub-Antarctic Areas Regulations will be amended with the updated
area descriptions in June 2009 if the significant errors identified in this paper are
approved for correction. The minor and technical errors not covered within this
70
proposal will be corrected along the same timeline with the updated definitions in
place for June 2009.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1: Status Quo
Impact
28
Retaining the status quo does not address the issues of credibility and maximising
voluntary compliance that MFish seeks to achieve. It will continue to create
uncertainty and the ability to exploit weaknesses around the true location of regulated
closures and restrictions. Most importantly, it will continue to undermine the intent of
previously approved Cabinet closures and restrictions.
29
The ambiguities will continue to create needless hurdles to compliance for users of the
relevant areas and the compliance arm of MFish, which is responsible for enforcing
these restrictions.
Costs
30
There is a risk of breaches against the affected regulations if they are perceived as
unenforceable. These risks could increase over time if this perception is allowed to
grow and eventually extend to other fisheries regulations. Any reduction in voluntary
compliance will result in greater effort and enforcement costs in order to achieve an
optimal level of compliance.
Benefits
31
There are no benefits associated with maintaining the status quo.
Option 2: Corrective Action
Impact
32
Addressing these errors will redress a longstanding deficiency in these regional
regulations and complement the congruent work conducted by MFish to improve all
area descriptions. The impact to fishers is expected to be relatively low since this
proposal does not introduce new restrictions and only aims to clarify existing ones.
Costs
33
There are no direct costs to industry from these proposed changes. Fishers will need
to be informed of the new area descriptions once these changes have been approved.
It is expected that these changes will warrant a low to moderate level of resources
from MFish but can be covered within existing processes.
Benefits
34
Properly labelling these incorrect areas will increase their management effectiveness
and better reflect the original goals behind the restrictions and closures involved.
71
Improved area descriptions will also assist fishers in complying with existing fisheries
regulations – increasing voluntary compliance. Accurate area descriptions that are
compatible with current navigational technology, such as GPS, will also serve to
improve the credibility of our fisheries management regime.
35
Correcting all commercial and amateur area descriptions within the Southland & SubAntarctic areas simultaneously is more efficient for MFish than the traditional
approach of addressing individual errors on an ad hoc basis.
Other Management Controls
36
There are no other management controls to consider since this proposal only involves
the correction of existing regulations.
Statutory Considerations
37
In considering the proposed amendments, the Minister is required to follow relevant
statutory criteria contained in the Act. These criteria are set out below.
38
Section 5 (a) and (b): There is a wide range of international obligations relating to
fishing (including sustainability and utilisation of fish stocks and maintaining
biodiversity). MFish considers that any of the recommendations are consistent with
issues arising under international obligations and the provisions of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
39
Section 8: The purpose of the Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries
resources while ensuring sustainability. Part of ensuring sustainability involves
avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic life.
The closed/restricted areas described in this paper were put in place to control the
impacts of fishing on vulnerable areas. The recommended changes are put forward to
ensure that compliance with these restrictions is achieved.
40
Section 9(c): The recommended changes will afford greater protection to the habitats
of particular significance identified within these closed/restricted areas by providing
added certainty and well-defined boundaries.
41
Section 10: MFish considers that the recommendations made are based on the best
available information and that the changes would better reflect current mapping
technology.
42
Section 297(1)(a)(ii): The Governor-General may from time to time, by Order in
Council, make regulations regulating, authorising, or prohibiting the taking or
possession of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed from any area.
72
REVIEW OF POTTING DEFINITIONS - INITIAL POSITION
PAPER
Executive Summary
1
This paper proposes amending the commercial and amateur fishing regulations to
explicitly allow the potting method to be used to take a larger number of species than
provided for now. The paper considers two options:
Option 1: Amend the regulations to allow the potting method for taking the
following species in addition to those already allowed: octopus, blue cod, paddle
crabs, deepwater crabs, and hagfish.
Option 2: Amend the regulations to allow the potting method to be used to take any
species.
2
The regulations already allow commercial and amateur potting for rock lobsters,
commercial potting for blue cod in BCO 5, and amateur use of ring pots and pull pots.
Potting for other species is not excluded in the regulations, but the definition of a
“rock lobster pot” in the regulations is very broad and has been interpreted to apply to
pots used to target other species unless a separate pot definition is provided.
3
The rock lobster pot definition is acting as a barrier to the development of potting
fisheries and is potentially constraining the ability of fishers to maximise the value
they attain from their fishing right. A rock lobster pot is required to have escape gaps,
which limits the pot’s effectiveness when used to target other species. Potting
methods have relatively limited environmental impacts and can also result in a higher
quality fish product. These characteristics can increase the value of the fish in the
marketplace and the value of the fishing experience for amateur fishers.
4
Additionally, some fishers already use pots to target species like paddle crabs, hagfish
and deepwater crabs. These fishers are unaware that the rock lobster pot definition
applies to their activity and that their pots are likely to be unlawful.
5
MFish considers the intention of the rock lobster pot regulations was to protect
undersize rock lobster and not to constrain the use of pots to take other species.
MFish requests input from tangata whenua and stakeholders on the proposed options.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
6
A Regulatory Impact Statement was prepared for this paper and reviewed internally
by MFish.
73
The Issue
7
Potting fisheries for species other than rock lobster is constrained by the regulations.
In the absence of definitions for most non-rock lobster pots 28, the rock lobster pot
definition in the commercial and amateur regulations 29 has been interpreted to apply
to most fishing pots. This means that all pots, unless specifically defined 30, that can
catch and hold or store rock lobster must meet specific escape aperture requirements
or they are unlawful. These aperture requirements may render pots less successful, or
even useless, for catching other species if marketable fish can easily escape through
the apertures. Commercial and recreational fishers currently use, or would like to use,
pots that do not meet the rock lobster pot specifications to take species other than rock
lobster, such as paddle crab and blue cod in some areas.
8
The rock lobster pot specifications were developed to minimise mortality of undersize
rock lobsters, not to constrain other potting fisheries. MFish is aware that commercial
pot fishery development for non-rock lobster species has been constrained by the rock
lobster pot definition. Recreational fishing activity has not been constrained to a great
degree, as potting for species other than rock lobster and blue cod is relatively limited.
However, the interpretation of the rock lobster pot definition has the potential to limit
the methods that recreational fishers are allowed to use.
9
Enforcement of the rock lobster pot definition has caused confusion among fishers as
to what types of pots may be lawfully used to take non-rock lobster species. Under
the status quo, the rock lobster pot definition creates a conflict between enforcement
of the commercial and amateur regulations and the objective of value maximisation.
This situation also detracts from credible fisheries management.
10
MFish considers the negative impacts on other fisheries are unintended and
undesirable and pots should be authorised wherever possible, subject to the best
available information. The impacts of potting on many species of captured target and
bycatch fish can be minimal. Fish are frequently alive and in good condition when
taken with pots and where legally possible, can be returned to the sea with a high
likelihood of survival. Pots also have a limited impact on the benthic environment.
Summary of Options
Option 1 – Status quo
11
The interpretation and application of the commercial and amateur regulations would
continue with most pots falling under the definition of rock lobster pots. All rock
lobster pots are required to have escape apertures with the appropriate specifications.
28
A pot is an enclosed device where fish actively enter and are captured.
Regulation 3 of the commercial regulations specifies that a rock lobster pot means a pot, whether baited or
not, that is capable of catching and holding or storing rock lobsters; and includes other devices capable of
catching, holding, and storing rock lobsters. Regulation 3 of the amateur regulations defines rock lobster pot in
a slightly different way, but the interpretation and application is similar. Regulation 79 of the commercial
regulations and regulation 25B in the amateur regulations requires rock lobster pots to have escape apertures and
provides the required aperture specifications with respect to number, placement, and dimensions.
30
Three other types of pots are defined in the regulations: blue cod pots in the Southland area, and ring pots and
pull pots in the amateur fishing regulations. The regulations relevant to use and possession of these types of
pots are presented in Appendix 1.
29
74
The only exceptions are lawful Southland blue cod pots (BCO 5), pull pots or ring
pots. The current regulations would be applied and enforced even if fishers intend to
use pots to take species other than rock lobster.
Option 2 – Limited authorisation of potting gear
12
13
Option 2 is a conservative approach to pot authorisation. MFish would recommend
amending the commercial and amateur regulations to allow potting only in fisheries
for which pot specifications would be defined or deemed not needed. Option 2
maintains the pot specifications for rock lobster and adds authorisation for blue cod,
octopus, paddle crab, deepwater crab and hagfish pots as follows 31:
Commercial pot
Recreational pot
Constrained fishery species
Areas
specifications
specifications
Octopus
All
Entry blocked so
that fish have to
force their way
into pot
Entry blocked so
that fish have to
force their way
into pot
Blue cod
1, 2, 3, 4, 48 mm minimum
7, 8
mesh size
None
Paddle crab
All
None
None
Deepwater crab
All
None
None
Hagfish
All
None
None
Snapper pots are not initially proposed for authorisation in Option 2 because the
effects of potting on undersize snapper are unknown.
Option 3 – Permissive authorisation of potting gear
14
Option 3 would recommend amending the commercial and amateur regulations to
allow potting for any species. Specifications could be developed and added to the
regulations for other species if MFish determines they are needed, but pots would be
authorised and lawful in every instance. Option 3 proposes to authorise pots for any
species, including those below, which would be subject to the following
specifications 32:
31
Option 2 recommends amending the commercial and amateur regulations to stipulate: (1) in addition to rock
lobster and notwithstanding regulations 79 (commercial) and 25B (amateur), fishers may use a pot to take
octopus, blue cod, paddle crab, deepwater crab or hagfish only; (2) no commercial fisher shall use a pot to take
blue cod unless the pot is constructed entirely of square steel mesh in which the spaces are not less than 48 mm
in width; and (3) no commercial fisher/person shall use a pot to take octopus unless the entrance to the pot is
covered and secured by a latch or similar device so that octopus have to force their way into the pot.
32
Option 3 recommends amending the commercial and amateur regulations to stipulate: (1) notwithstanding
regulations 79 (commercial) and 25B (amateur), fishers may use any pot, but not a rock lobster pot, to take any
species other than rock lobster; (2) [as in Option 2] no commercial fisher shall use a pot to take blue cod unless
the pot is constructed entirely of square steel mesh in which the spaces are not less than 48 mm in width; and (3)
[as in Option 2] no commercial fisher/person shall use a pot to take octopus unless the entrance to the pot is
covered and secured by a latch or similar device so that octopus have to force their way into the pot.
75
Commercial pot
Recreational pot
Constrained fishery species
Areas
specifications
specifications
Snapper
All
None
None
Octopus
All
Entry blocked so
that fish have to
force their way
into pot
Entry blocked so
that fish have to
force their way
into pot
Blue cod
1, 2, 3, 4,
7, 8
48mm minimum
mesh size
None
Paddle crab
All
None
None
Deepwater crab
All
None
None
Hagfish
All
None
None
All other potting fisheries
Unknown Unknown
Unknown
Rationale for Management Options
15
This proposal seeks to remove unnecessary constraints on potting fisheries and clarify
the regulatory rock lobster pot definition for compliance purposes. MFish considers
the rock lobster pot definition was not intended to constrain fisheries for other species,
but rather to enable rock lobsters below the minimum legal size (MLS) to escape from
the pot prior to harvest. The escape aperture allows any rock lobsters that are
undersize to leave the pot.
16
It is important to maintain the specifications for rock lobster pots as they relate to the
rock lobster MLS. The MLS is a fisheries management tool used chiefly to ensure
future recruitment to fish stocks by allowing a proportion of individuals within the
stock to reach sexual maturity and breed before being harvested.
17
The rock lobster pot aperture specifications were based on scientific evidence that
suggested: (1) undersized rock lobsters caught and released from pots were
vulnerable to predation in the pot and after release, and (2) undersized rock lobsters
could be damaged during sorting after capture. Apertures allow undersize rock
lobster to escape from pots prior to harvest and minimise predation and handlingrelated mortality.
18
MFish does not propose to change any regulations pertaining to rock lobster fisheries
in this action, but instead intends to address constraints on other potting fisheries that
are created by the interpretation of the rock lobster pot definition in the commercial
and amateur regulations.
19
MFish proposes two options to the status quo. Option 2 would authorise potting only
for those fisheries where MFish has established pot specifications or has determined
that pot specifications are not needed. This option would remove most constraints on
known developing potting fisheries, and have minimal impacts on the affected stocks
or on rock lobster fisheries.
76
20
Option 3 is a permissive approach that would remove existing and potential
constraints on potting fisheries. Option 3 would amend the commercial and amateur
regulations to authorise pots for all species. Regulatory requirements would remain
unchanged for rock lobster pots. Pot specifications could be developed for other
species as needed, but would not be required for pots to be considered lawful.
21
MFish seeks input on the options and the likely impacts of the proposed pot
specifications.
MFish also requests information from tangata whenua and
stakeholders on:
22
a)
the degree to which commercial and recreational potting fisheries for non-rock
lobster species are constrained by the current regulatory definition of rock
lobster pots
b)
whether technical specifications, such as escape apertures or minimum mesh
sizes, are needed for pots used to take species other than rock lobster
Regulatory amendments resulting from this proposal, if any, would take effect on 1
June 2009.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status quo
Impacts summary
23
All fishing pots, with the exception of lawful (1) commercial and recreational blue
cod pots in the Southland area (BCO 5), (2) pull pots, and (3) ring pots would be
considered rock lobster pots for enforcement purposes. The practical result of this
interpretation is that all undefined pots used to take other species would have to meet
the rock lobster pot escape aperture requirements.
24
MFish has been notified that commercial fishers would like to take the following
species with pots:
•
snapper
•
octopus
25
MFish informed prospective snapper and octopus pot fishers that any pots used to take
these species were considered unlawful without the required apertures, even though
the apertures would render the snapper and octopus pots less effective, or perhaps
even useless, for catching these species as legal and marketable fish could escape
through the apertures. No further development activities have taken place for snapper
and octopus potting.
26
Prospective pot fishers could apply for a special permit to trial potting gear for
snapper, octopus or additional species other than rock lobster. Section 97 of the
Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act) authorises the MFish chief executive to issue a special
permit for the purposes of carrying out trials and experiments with fishing gear. This
may provide fishers with an opportunity to try different pots to determine what
specifications would be appropriate for taking non-rock lobster species, as specified in
77
the conditions of the special permit. However, use of special permits would not
provide a long-term solution as the rock lobster pot definition would still constrain the
fisheries after the term of the permit expires.
27
28
MFish is also aware that the interpretation of the rock lobster pot definition renders
most pots currently used in some commercial fisheries unlawful. This creates
enforcement difficulties and some confusion about the regulations among fishers in
the following fisheries:
•
blue cod (other than BCO 5)
•
paddle crab
•
deepwater crab
•
hagfish
Most pots currently used in these fisheries are unlawful because they do not have the
required escape apertures. However, MFish and fishers consider the pots in use are an
acceptable method to catch these other species. The pots do not capture significant
amounts of rock lobster or otherwise negatively impact on rock lobster fisheries in an
unacceptable manner. Enforcement of the commercial regulations is unreasonable in
these fisheries. This situation diminishes credible fisheries management and the status
quo is undesirable.
Option 1 (Status Quo) - Summary of impacts
Option 1 impacts on:
33
Commercial potting
Recreational potting
Species
Stock
status 33
fisheries
fisheries
Snapper
None
Utilisation
constrained
None
Octopus
None
Utilisation
constrained
None
Blue cod (except BCO 5)
None
Approximately 55
fishers would incur
costs to alter or
replace pots
Unknown number of
fishers would incur
costs to alter or
replace pots
Paddle crab
None
Approximately 11
fishers would incur
costs to alter or
replace pots
Unknown number of
fishers would incur
costs to alter or
replace pots
Deepwater crab
None
One fisher would
incur costs to alter or
replace pots
None
See Appendix 2 for a discussion of the impacts of each proposed option on the stock status for each species.
78
Option 1 impacts on:
Species
Hagfish
Stock
status 33
Commercial potting
Recreational potting
fisheries
fisheries
None
Approximately four
fishers would incur
costs to alter or
replace pots
None
Snapper
29
Snapper stocks are managed in the quota management system (QMS) and are some of
the largest and most valuable coastal commercial and recreational fisheries in New
Zealand. Snapper also form important fisheries for customary Maori purposes, but the
annual catch is unknown.
30
Commercial and recreational fisheries – The primary methods for taking snapper in
the commercial fishery are trawl and long line. Recreational fishers generally take
snapper with hook and line. All snapper stocks have an MLS and commercial and
recreational fishers must return undersize fish to the water to minimise mortality.
Option 1 constrains utilisation of snapper with pots since commercial fishers are
restricted from using pots that are configured to take snapper, i.e., pots without rock
lobster escape apertures. MFish is not aware of any recreational potting fisheries for
snapper, so Option 1 is unlikely to have an impact on recreational fishers.
Octopus
31
Octopus stocks are managed as an open access non-QMS fishery and TACs have not
been established. Octopus are caught as bycatch across a large number of fisheries
including rock lobster and blue cod pot, and bottom trawl and longline fisheries for a
variety of species.
32
Commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries – Option 1 restricts utilisation of
octopus to a bycatch fishery since commercial fishers are restricted from using pots to
effectively take them. MFish is not aware of any recreational potting fisheries for
octopus.
Blue cod
33
Blue cod stocks are managed in the QMS and are important to inshore commercial,
recreational and customary fishers.
34
Commercial fisheries – The commercial blue cod fishery is chiefly a pot fishery, and
the majority (nearly 57%) of landings come from the Southland area (BCO 5). The
Chatham Islands commercial fishery is also significant (approximately 30% of blue
cod landings). Catches of non-target species are minor and are generally restricted to
octopus and conger eel. All blue cod stocks have an MLS and commercial fishers
must return undersize fish to the water.
79
35
The BCO 5 commercial pot authorisation and specifications were based on research in
the Southland area that found seabird predation was a threat to juvenile fish when they
were returned to the water following capture in pots. To reduce this predation threat,
protect reproductive capacity and to maximise yield from the fishery, a minimum
mesh size of 48 mm was introduced to BCO 5 in 1994 to allow undersize fish to
escape through the mesh. 34 MFish considers the existing pot specifications are
important management tools for the sustainability of the BCO 5 fishery. Mesh size
restrictions have not been established in any other blue cod quota management area.
36
Option 1 would impact commercial fishers outside of the Southland area (BCO 5)
who take blue cod with pots that do not meet the rock lobster pot specifications.
Available information indicates that in the 2006-07 fishing year, 55 fishers harvested
approximately 713 tonnes of blue cod with cod pots in these areas. Anecdotal
information suggests that the pots used outside of BCO 5 do not meet the rock lobster
pot specifications. These fishers would be impacted by Option 1 since they would be
required to use pots with escape gaps that meet rock lobster pot specifications and
these pots are likely to be less effective at catching blue cod. However, under the
status quo, blue cod pots that do not meet the rock lobster pot specifications outside of
BCO 5 are unlawful.
37
Recreational fisheries – Recreational fishers generally use hook and line gear to take
blue cod, but charter vessel operators also set cod pots. In addition, commercial
fishers often take their recreational blue cod catch with pots under section 111 of the
Act. All blue cod stocks have an MLS and recreational fishers must return undersize
fish to the water. The amateur regulations also specify individual daily limits. The
Southland amateur regulations define a blue cod pot but do not require mesh of a
minimum size or escape apertures.
38
Option 1 would not impact on recreational blue cod fishers who use lawful pots in the
Southland area. Since only the Southland area amateur regulations separately define a
blue cod pot, the rock lobster pot definition applies in all other amateur fishing areas,
and Option 1 would impact on recreational fishers outside of the Southland area who
use pots that do not comply with rock lobster pot specifications. No information is
available to suggest how many recreational fishers may be affected.
Paddle crabs
39
Paddle crab stocks are managed in the QMS. The paddle crab commercial fishery is
predominantly (over 90 percent) a potting fishery, but crabs are also taken as bycatch
in trawl, set net and dredge fisheries. Recreational fishing survey data indicate that
paddle crabs were seldom caught by recreational fishers historically, but the number
of recreational fishers potting for paddle crabs has increased in recent times.
40
Commercial fisheries – Fishers use a variety of pot types to take paddle crabs. These
pots typically do not comply with the rock lobster pot specifications and would be
considered unlawful under Option 1. Although paddle crab pots vary in form, they
are generally placed close to shore, typically on a sandy beach.
34
McGregor, G.A. (1988). Blue cod. N.Z. Fisheries Assessment Research Document 88/41. 11p. and Ministry of
Agriculture and Fisheries 1986 cod pot trial.
80
41
Paddle crabs are listed on the Sixth Schedule to the Act, which enables fishers to
return them to the water if they were caught in pots and are likely to survive. The
Sixth Schedule listing provides operators the opportunity to maximise the efficiency
of their operations and the value of their catch by returning small or unmarketable fish
to the water. The Sixth Schedule listing for paddle crabs was based on information
that suggests crabs caught in pots have a good likelihood of survival following
capture, thus current potting practices are not likely to pose sustainability concerns to
paddle crab stocks.
42
Option 1 would impact fishers targeting paddle crab with pots. Available information
indicates that in the 2006-07 fishing year, 11 vessels harvested 25 t of paddle crab
with pots. Although a relatively small number of paddle crab fishers would be
impacted by enforcement of commercial pot regulations, the requirement to alter or
perhaps replace paddle crab pots would impose a cost on these fishers since they
would be required to use pots that meet the rock lobster pot specifications. In
addition, pots that meet the rock lobster pot specifications may be less effective for
catching paddle crabs. Finally, requiring paddle crab fishers to use pots compliant
with the rock lobster pot specifications would not provide any known benefit to
paddle crab stocks.
43
Recreational fisheries – Option 1 would require recreational fishers who take paddle
crab with pots to have the apertures specified in the amateur regulations for rock
lobster pots, unless fishers use lawful pull pots or ring pots.
Deepwater crabs
44
Deepwater crabs are also caught with pots, generally in depths from 500 metres to
1500 metres. A developing commercial fishery for deepwater crabs is underway and
there is no known recreational harvest of deepwater crabs.
45
Commercial fisheries – The developers of the deepwater crab pot fishery have trialled
a number of types of pots to determine the most effective design. These pots do not
comply with the rock lobster pot specifications and would be considered unlawful
under Option 1. Deepwater crabs are listed on the Sixth Schedule to the Act, which
enables fishers to return these fish to the water if they were caught in pots and are
likely to survive. Like paddle crabs, deepwater crabs are thought to have good chance
of survival after capture in pots.
46
Option 1 would significantly impact fishers targeting deepwater crabs with pots.
Although just one vessel has been involved in the developing fishery, it utilises
several hundred pots to fish for deepwater crabs. Ensuring the pots meet the rock
lobster specifications would impose costs on the operator and may curtail further
deepwater crab fishery development. In addition, pots that meet the rock lobster pot
specifications may be less effective for catching deepwater crabs. Finally, requiring
deepwater crab fishers to use pots compliant with the rock lobster pot specifications
would not provide any known benefit to deepwater crab stocks.
47
Recreational fisheries – Option 1 does not impact on recreational fisheries since
MFish is not aware of any recreational potting fisheries for deepwater crab.
Hagfish
81
48
Hagfish are managed outside of the QMS as an open access fishery. Until recently,
the only significant New Zealand hagfish target fishery was the customary fishery.
MFish recently considered hagfish for introduction to the QMS but found it did not
meet the relevant criteria. Development of a commercial hagfish fishery is in the
early stages.
49
Commercial fisheries – Commercial hagfish fishers use pots that do not meet the rock
lobster pot specifications. Option 1 would impact on these fishers. Available
information indicates that in the 2006-07 fishing year, four vessels harvested hagfish
with pots. Hagfish pots have a significantly different configuration than rock lobster
pots, so it is unlikely that pots meeting the rock lobster could effectively catch
hagfish. Option 1 could result in suspension of further fishery development.
50
Recreational fisheries – Option 1 does not impact on recreational fisheries since
MFish is not aware of any recreational potting fisheries for hagfish.
Status quo - Impacts on rock lobster fisheries
51
Rock lobsters are at a high risk of illegal catch because they have a high value and are
geographically and financially easily accessed. Illegal catch in rock lobster fisheries
is ‘unacceptably’ high under the status quo. The rock lobster pot definition in the
commercial and amateur regulations may contribute to some illegal catch of rock
lobsters. Illegal catch may occur if fishers target rock lobster with unlawful pots but
claim to be using pots to target other species, or if recreational fishers aim to
circumvent the per person or vessel rock lobster pot limits that are in place by using
unlawful pots.
Impacts on Compliance strategies
52
Under Option 1, the commercial and amateur regulations would be interpreted and
enforced such that all undefined fishing pots are captured by the rock lobster pot
definition. This would continue to unnecessarily constrain non-rock lobster potting
fisheries. If this situation is maintained, MFish would remain in the undesirable
position of enforcing a regulatory interpretation that unnecessarily conflicts with
MFish’s value maximisation objective. This situation detracts from credible fisheries
management.
Option 2 – Limited authorisation of potting gear
Impacts summary
53
Option 2 would authorise potting only when: (1) pot specifications (such as apertures
or mesh size) have been established for a particular species, or (2) MFish deems that
pot specifications are unnecessary. Option 2 also proposes to extend the 48 mm
minimum mesh size from BCO 5 to all other blue cod commercial fisheries. This pot
specification requirement would provide consistency in the commercial regulations
and would likely benefit blue cod stocks with minimal cost to fishers.
54
Based on available information, Option 2 would authorise potting for:
a)
octopus (all commercial fisheries with pot specifications)
82
b)
blue cod (all commercial and recreational fisheries and commercial pots
subject to 48 mm minimum mesh size)
c)
paddle crab (all commercial and recreational fisheries with no pot
specifications)
d)
deepwater crab (all commercial fisheries with no pot specifications)
e)
hagfish (all commercial fisheries with no pot specifications)
55
Snapper pots are not proposed for authorisation under Option 2.
56
Option 2 is a fairly conservative approach since pots would have to be explicitly
authorised in the commercial and amateur regulations to be lawful. Option 2 provides
for increased utilisation and more credible fisheries management, with minimal risk to
species taken with pots and to rock lobster fisheries. Option 2 would remove
ambiguity from the interpretation and application of the commercial and amateur
regulations, but would still constrain utilisation for the snapper pot fishery and for
development of other as-yet unspecified potting fisheries in the future.
57
Option 2 could be seen as a fairly restrictive form of input controls. Under Option 2,
authorisation of potting in additional fisheries would rely on MFish developing pot
specifications, or deeming that none are necessary. MFish’s ability to do this would
depend on MFish resources to amend the regulations and may depend on research
studies in the fishery of concern.
58
Option 2 may provide an increased risk to areas and habitats that were previously
unfished if the potting authorisation results in a significant number of pots being
deployed, or if pots are concentrated in particularly sensitive areas. This may not be a
substantial risk, however, as available information suggests that the only ‘new’ fishery
authorised in Option 2 would be the octopus fishery. Potting fisheries are currently
taking place for paddle crabs, deepwater crabs and hagfish. If Option 2 was
implemented, MFish would monitor the development of the octopus fishery and other
authorised potting fisheries to determine negative impacts on previously unfished
areas and take relevant action where necessary.
59
Although pots are considered to have a relatively low environmental impact, pots can
be lost or abandoned by fishers and continue to catch fish. This ‘ghost fishing’ occurs
when passive gears such as gillnets, pots and traps, are lost or discarded and continue
to catch fish and crustaceans. Ghost pots may also be a source of litter or
entanglement for birds and mammals when washed ashore and can potentially pose
safety risks for fishers if they become entangled with active fishing gear and vessel
propellers. Modern pots are typically made of non-biodegradable synthetic fibres and
can persist in the environment for long periods.
60
The extent of ghost fishing is largely unknown, but some research studies have been
completed for pot and trap fisheries. In studies from Europe, mortality rates from pots
and traps were believed to be low, owing to a fairly low pot loss rate, coupled with
good escapement rates for captured fish and other species. This information was
compared with some North American fisheries, where reported ghost catch levels may
be up to seven percent of commercial catch, and fishing grounds in the Sultanate of
83
Oman, where pot loss rates may be up to 20% of those set.35 Although Option 2 may
introduce an increased risk of lost pots, MFish considers that the risk would not be a
concern, since Option 2 authorises only one ‘new’ fishery (octopus). Lost pots are
costly to fishers and this creates a strong incentive for fishers to minimise pot loss. If
Option 2 were implemented, MFish would monitor the levels of pot loss, particularly
in the developing fisheries. The adverse effects of lost pots are relatively easily
averted by incorporating escape panels into pot design and by using biodegradable
materials. 36
Option 2 (Limited pot authorisation) – Summary of impacts
Option 2 impacts on:
61
Commercial
potting
Recreational
potting
Species
Stock status
fisheries
fisheries
Snapper
None
Utilisation
constrained
None
Octopus
Unknown
Potential
increased
utilisation
None
Blue cod (except BCO 5)
Sustainability
benefit - BCO5
minimum
mesh size
extended to
other
commercial
fishing areas
Approximately 22 Continue current
fishers would
practices
incur costs to alter
or replace pots
Paddle crab
None likely
Continue current
practices
Continue current
practices
Deepwater crab
None likely
Continue current
practices
None
Hagfish
None likely
Continue current
practices
None
The primary risks that should be assessed for Option 2 are the potential for potting
authorisation to increase catch and/or mortality (particularly undersize fish) of the
species likely to be taken, including bycatch species.
Snapper
62
Commercial fisheries – Snapper pots are not initially proposed for authorisation in
Option 2 because it is likely the pots will capture undersize snapper, and information
35
Hart, P., and Reynolds, J. (2002). Handbook of Fish Biology and Fisheries v. 2, Blackwell Publishing, 424 p.
Brown, J., and Macfayden, G., (2007). Ghost fishing in European waters: Impacts and management
responses. Marine Policy 31(4): 488-504.
36
84
is not available on the mortality rates of undersize snapper after release from pots.
While this unknown risk may not create concerns for snapper stocks, Option 2 is a
conservative approach to potting authorisation. The snapper fisheries are important to
the customary, recreational and commercial sectors and the fisheries are fully utilised.
MFish considers that under a conservative authorisation approach, snapper potting
would not be authorised until information is available to determine what pot
specifications would protect juvenile snapper from predation or other mortality after
capture in pots.
63
If Option 2 was implemented, prospective snapper fishers could apply for a special
permit to utilise pots. While this would not provide a long-term solution to the
constraint on potting for snapper, it may provide an opportunity for fishers to
determine effective snapper pot specifications with special permit gear trials. With
this information, MFish may be able to develop pot specifications that enable
effective capture of snapper without negatively impacting on undersize snapper.
These specifications would also need to limit interactions with rock lobster fisheries.
64
Recreational fisheries – Option 2 would not impact on recreational fisheries since
MFish is not aware of any recreational potting for snapper. As with commercial
fisheries, snapper potting would be authorised for recreational fishers only if the pots
meet the rock lobster pot specifications.
Octopus
65
Commercial fisheries – MFish proposes to authorise octopus pots in Option 2 and
develop pot specifications in the regulations. Octopus pots would be required to have
an entry that is securely covered (with some resistance), or is otherwise effectively a
one-way entrance, so that octopus must push through to enter the pot. Octopus are
known to enter small spaces relative to their body size, particularly to feed, and this
type of pot specification is likely to be effective at catching and retaining octopus.
Available information indicates that octopus pots have not yet been produced in large
numbers but could be configured in such a way to meet this requirement.
66
Recreational fisheries – Option 2 does not impact on recreational fisheries since
MFish is not aware of any recreational potting fisheries for octopus. However, as
with commercial fisheries, recreational octopus pots would have to meet the same
blocked entry requirement described above.
Blue cod
67
Commercial fisheries – Option 2 proposes to authorise potting for blue cod in all
commercial fishing areas. Option 2 also proposes to extend the BCO 5 requirement
for a minimum mesh size of 48 mm for blue cod pots to all other blue cod commercial
fishing areas. This proposal is based on the Southland blue cod pot trial that found the
minimum mesh size enabled undersize blue cod to escape from pots, which can
significantly reduce juvenile mortality and provide stock sustainability benefits (see
footnote 7). Option 2 would not likely impact on commercial blue cod fishers in
Southland (48mm mesh already a requirement) or the Chatham Islands (BCO 4) as
most commercial blue cod fishers use pots that would meet the mesh size requirement.
Catch from the Southland area and the Chatham Islands totals just under 90 percent of
total commercial blue cod landings in the 2006-07 fishing year.
85
68
Blue cod can be found in rock lobster habitat and are known predators of juvenile
rock lobsters, particularly at night. However, blue cod pots are often set for periods of
as little as twenty minutes to a few hours during daylight, and rock lobsters do not
usually actively feed during the day. MFish considers that status quo blue cod potting
fisheries do not negatively impact on rock lobster fisheries.
69
Catch records indicate that Option 2 would impact on approximately 22 commercial
fishers who use pots to take blue cod, primarily in BCO 7 and BCO 8. These fishers
landed approximately four percent of total commercial blue cod landings in the 200607 fishing year. Under Option 2, these fishers would incur costs 37 to replace blue cod
pots to ensure they comply with the minimum mesh size requirement.
70
Recreational fisheries – Option 2 would authorise potting for blue cod in all
recreational fisheries. This would primarily impact charter vessel operators outside of
the Southland area that deploy blue cod pots under section 111 of the Act by
authorising current practices.
71
As currently proposed, Option 2 would extend blue cod pot authorisation to all fishing
areas in the amateur regulations without requiring pot specifications. Available
information suggests the minimum mesh size may provide stock sustainability
benefits for blue cod, should it be considered for extension to recreational potting
fisheries in the future. MFish seeks input on the likely impacts on fishers of
extending the 48 mm minimum mesh size to all recreational fishing areas.
Paddle crabs, deepwater crabs and hagfish
72
Commercial fisheries – Option 2 would not directly impact on fishers in the paddle
crab, deepwater crab, and hagfish commercial fisheries since they would be
authorised to continue current potting practices. The primary benefit of Option 2 is an
improvement to fisheries management credibility.
73
The paddle crab fisheries have little to no impact on rock lobster fisheries. Paddle
crab pots are generally placed on sandy beaches. Rock lobsters are most frequently
found in rocky habitat and the primary catch depths are from 10 metres to 100 metres,
so there is little to no overlap of the fishery areas.
74
The deepwater crab and hagfish pots also have minimal, if any, impact on rock lobster
fisheries since those pots are used in areas outside of rock lobster habitat. Deepwater
crab pots are generally set at depths of 500 metres to 800 metres and hagfish pots are
set from 200 metres to 300 metres, which are well outside the range of rock lobster
habitat.
75
Recreational fisheries – Option 2 would authorise current potting practices in the
paddle crab recreational fishery. MFish is not aware of any recreational potting for
deepwater crabs or hagfish, thus Option 2 would have no impact.
37
Commercial fishers generally deploy around six pots, which may cost from $500 to $600 per pot to replace in
order to meet the minimum mesh size requirement.
86
Impacts on rock lobster fisheries
76
Option 2 aims to provide for increased utilisation by authorising potting for species
other than rock lobster, while minimising the risk of negative impacts on rock lobster
fisheries. The primary risks to assess for Option 2 are (1) the potential for
significantly increased catch and/or mortality of rock lobster (particularly undersize
fish) from authorisation of non-rock lobster potting, and (2) the impacts of non-rock
lobster potting on illegal catch of rock lobsters. Potting should not be authorised for
fisheries where there is an unacceptably high risk of increased undersize rock lobster
mortality or where authorising non-rock lobster potting increases the likelihood of
illegal harvest of rock lobsters. Option 2 has a low risk of unacceptable impacts on
rock lobster fisheries.
77
Snapper – Option 2 does not propose to authorise potting for snapper so there are no
impacts on rock lobster fisheries.
78
Octopus – MFish considers the octopus fishery would have minimal impact on rock
lobster fisheries if appropriate pot specifications are developed. Option 2 proposes
that octopus pots would be required to have entry holes blocked securely so that
octopus can enter the pot, but must push their way through the opening. As an
example, the pot entry could be covered with mesh or other material that is secured
with a resistant cord or latch that an octopus could open enough to get through the
entry, but would rebound to cover the entry hole once the octopus passed through.
Rock lobsters are less likely to push through these types of barriers to enter a pot.
MFish requests additional information from stakeholders on the likely impacts of
the proposed octopus pot specification.
79
Blue cod – MFish considers that current blue cod commercial and amateur potting
practices do not significantly impact on existing rock lobster fisheries. Option 2
proposes to explicitly authorise blue cod potting in all commercial and amateur
fisheries and require a minimum mesh size for commercial blue cod pots. MFish
anticipates that potting for blue cod would not change significantly with Option 2 as
the cost of altering or replacing pots is moderate. Thus the impacts from blue cod
potting on rock lobster fisheries would not likely change considerably from the status
quo.
80
Paddle crabs, deepwater crabs and hagfish – MFish considers there is minimal risk
to rock lobster of authorising potting for these species without establishing pot
specifications since fishing for these species does not take place in rock lobster fishing
areas.
Impacts on Compliance strategies
81
Option 2 explicitly authorises potting for specific species and eliminates regulatory
ambiguity regarding interpretations of the lawful use of pots for species other than
rock lobster. For the additional pot specifications that are established with this action
(BCO 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 and octopus) MFish would need to monitor, confirm
compliance with, and enforce such specifications within existing compliance activities
in those fisheries.
87
82
With Option 2, compliance activities would have to focus more on use offences, since
a greater number of pots (some with specifications) would be authorised in the
commercial and amateur regulations. This may increase enforcement costs.
However, costs would be unlikely to increase substantially since fishers already use
several pots that would be authorised by Option 2.
Option 3 – Permissive authorisation of potting gear
Impacts summary
83
Option 3 would authorise potting for any species, regardless of whether pot
specifications are defined in the commercial and amateur regulations or deemed not
needed. Potting in all fisheries that are currently constrained by the regulations
(including snapper), as well as potting fisheries that develop in the future would be
authorised. Pot specifications would be required as follows:
Option 3 (Permissive pot authorisation) – Summary of impacts
Option 3 impacts on:
Commercial
potting
Recreational
potting
Species
Stock status
fisheries
fisheries
Snapper
Unknown
Increased
utilisation
None
Octopus
None likely
Increased
utilisation
None
Blue cod (except BCO 5)
Sustainability
benefit BCO5
minimum
mesh size
extended to
other
commercial
fishing areas
Approximately Continue
22 fishers
current
would incur
practices
costs to alter
or replace pots
Paddle crab
None likely
Continue
current
practices
Continue
current
practices
Deepwater crab
None likely
Continue
current
practices
None
Hagfish
None likely
Continue
current
practices
None
All other potting fisheries
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
88
84
The practical effect of Option 3 is identical to the assessed impacts of Option 2 for all
constrained species except snapper and potting fisheries that may develop in the
future. The risk of Option 3 to the sustainability of fish stocks taken with pots is
likely low, but may be higher for snapper than Option 2. The risk to rock lobster
fisheries may also be greater under Option 3 than Option 2 since the impacts of
snapper and as-yet unidentified potting fisheries cannot be determined at this time.
Option 3 provides the most potential for increased value from development of pot
fisheries for other target species.
85
Option 3 may increase the risks of fishing in previously unfished habitats and pot loss
when compared to Option 2, since it would authorise potting for a greater (but
unknown) number of species. As with Option 2, MFish would monitor the
development of these potting fisheries, assess any environmental impacts and take
action where necessary.
Snapper
86
The potting fishery for snapper would be a new fishery in New Zealand and it is
unclear what pot configuration would be most effective to catch snapper. As such,
prospective fisheries are likely to involve trials of several different types of pots, for
which the individual configurations have not been determined. MFish considers
potting is an acceptable method of fishing and development of a targeted pot fishery is
unlikely to raise sustainability concerns for snapper in the near term. Even if
undersize snapper are caught in pots, which would be the main concern, survivability
of fish returned to the water (which is required by the commercial and amateur
regulations) may be high, unless in-pot predation or predation after release results in
high levels of mortality.
87
As discussed for Option 2, MFish would monitor the development of the snapper
potting fishery, particularly for the effects on undersize fish, and could develop
appropriate pot specifications in the future. Under Option 3, any increase in potting
for snapper would also result in a corresponding decrease in fish captured with trawl
or long line gear since the fishery is fully utilised.
88
Commercial fisheries – The snapper potting fishery is currently undeveloped, and
Option 3 would increase the opportunity for utilisation and value maximisation of
snapper resources by prospective pot fishers.
89
Recreational fisheries – Option 3 may also increase the opportunity for utilisation by
recreational fishers. Fishers generally take snapper with hook and line gear and it is
not known if Option 3 would encourage fishers to change to potting gear. This seems
unlikely, particularly since an effective snapper pot configuration has not yet been
developed for use in New Zealand.
Octopus and blue cod
90
Commercial fisheries – MFish proposes to authorise octopus pots in Option 3 and
develop pot specifications in the regulations, which would enable fishers to increase
utilisation and work toward maximising the value of octopus stocks, as with Option 2.
The pot specification would require that the entrance to the pot be configured such
that octopus have to force their way into the pot.
89
91
Option 3 proposes to extend the blue cod potting authorisation from BCO 5 to all
other blue cod commercial fishing areas. Option 3 also proposes to extend the BCO 5
requirement for a minimum mesh size of 48 mm for blue cod pots to all blue cod
commercial fishing areas. As with Option 2, Option 3 would impose pot alteration or
replacement costs (approximately $500 to $600 per pot) on 22 blue cod fishers who
likely use pots that do not have mesh of 48 mm or more. The level of costs incurred
would depend on the number of pots that fishers deploy, and they may choose to stop
fishing if alteration or replacement of pots is too costly.
92
Recreational fisheries – Option 3 proposes to authorise potting for blue cod and
octopus in the amateur regulations, and the octopus pots would be subject to the same
pot specification proposed in the commercial regulations. There is a high likelihood
that octopus pots without such a specification would catch rock lobster since the pots
likely be placed in some rock lobster fishing areas. However, as previously discussed
under Option 2, MFish is unaware of recreational potting fisheries for octopus.
93
Option 3 would extend pot authorisation to all blue cod fishing areas in the amateur
regulations without requiring pot specifications. As discussed for Option 2, available
information suggests that the minimum mesh size may provide stock sustainability
benefits for blue cod and MFish seeks input on the likely impacts on fishers if the
48 mm minimum mesh size requirement was considered for recreational blue cod
fisheries at some point in the future.
Paddle crabs, deepwater crabs and hagfish
94
Commercial fisheries – Option 3 would not directly impact commercial fishers in the
paddle crab, deepwater crab, and hagfish fisheries since they would be authorised to
continue current potting practices. The primary benefit of Option 3 is to improve
fisheries management credibility.
95
Recreational fisheries – Option 3 would authorise current potting practices in the
paddle crab recreational fishery. MFish is not aware of any recreational potting
fisheries for deepwater crabs or hagfish.
All other potting fisheries
96
Option 3 would authorise potting for all other species so the effects on these stocks
would likely be unknown. MFish would monitor ongoing development of these
fisheries to determine whether further management measures, including pot
specifications, would be needed.
Impacts on rock lobster fisheries
97
Option 3 introduces additional uncertainty about the risk of impacts on rock lobster
fisheries since potting would be authorised for snapper and other potting fisheries,
which may result in additional pots being deployed in some rock lobster fishing areas.
98
Snapper – Option 3 proposes to authorise potting for snapper (through authorisation
of pots for all species) to reduce constraints on utilisation.
90
99
Snapper and rock lobster are caught at similar depths (10 metres – 100 metres) and
can be found in the same types of habitat, so it seems likely that snapper pots would
catch rock lobster. However, Option 3 is a permissive approach to potting
authorisation that aims to reduce constraints on utilisation to the extent possible.
Under Option 3, the risk of additional pots deployed in rock lobster habitat may be
mitigated somewhat since fishers who catch rock lobsters in non-rock lobster pots
may return rock lobsters to sea if they are likely to survive, subject to the provisions in
Schedule 6 of the Act and the regulations. Fishers also may not take rock lobster
unless they hold at least three tonnes of red rock lobster annual catch entitlement
(Section 74 of the Fisheries Act), which would provide a strong incentive for pot
fishers in non-rock lobster fisheries to avoid red rock lobster bycatch to the extent
possible.
100
It is unknown whether the potential for increased rock lobster catch would affect rock
lobster stocks, so MFish would closely monitor the development of the snapper
potting fishery with respect to levels of rock lobster bycatch. As discussed for the
impacts of Option 3 on snapper fisheries, pot specifications could be developed in the
future, and these specifications should limit interactions with rock lobster fisheries to
the extent possible.
101
Octopus and blue cod – MFish considers the octopus fishery would have minimal
impact on the rock lobster fisheries if appropriate pot specifications are developed.
Option 3 proposes the same octopus pot specification found in Option 2, which would
require that any pot openings be blocked in such a way that octopus must force their
way through the opening.
102
MFish considers that current blue cod fisheries do not negatively impact on existing
rock lobster fisheries. MFish anticipates that potting for blue cod would not increase
substantially with Option 3, but would likely continue current practices.
103
Paddle crabs, deepwater crabs and hagfish – As discussed in the assessment for
Options 2, MFish considers the impact on rock lobster fisheries is minimal since the
fishing areas do not overlap with rock lobster catch areas.
104
All other potting fisheries – Option 3 would authorise potting for all other species so
the effects on rock lobster fisheries would be unknown. MFish would monitor
ongoing development of these fisheries and take action where necessary.
Impacts on Compliance strategies
105
Option 3 has the identical compliance impacts as Option 2; it explicitly authorises
potting for all species and eliminates regulatory ambiguity regarding the lawful use of
pots for other target species. For the additional specifications that are established with
this action (BCO 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 and octopus) MFish would need to monitor,
confirm compliance with, and enforce such specifications within existing compliance
activities in those fisheries.
91
Other Management Controls
106
MFish would develop offences and penalties for breaches of the additional pot
specification requirements that would be developed in the commercial and amateur
regulations as an outcome of this proposed action.
107
As outlined in regulation 25C of the amateur regulations, recreational fishers are also
subject to person and vessel limits on the number of rock lobster pots that can be used,
set or possessed on any one day. These provisions limit the fishing effort by a single
recreational fisher or from one particular vessel. The limits are intended to help
recreational fishers to stay within the daily bag limit by preventing a catch of
significantly more than the daily bag limit in a single set of pots. The limits are also a
constraint for poachers who may conceal their activities under the guise of
recreational fishing.
108
MFish considered the option of proposing similar limits to pots used to fish for
species other than rock lobster for the same purpose, but the creation of such limits is
not included in any of the options presented in this paper. MFish believes that such
limits are not necessary at this time, but there may be a risk of some fishers
circumventing the limits on the number of rock lobster pots by using other pots that
could, in certain circumstances, catch a rock lobster (e.g., blue cod pots). Under
Options 2 and 3, MFish would continue to monitor these risks and would propose
further action where necessary. Nonetheless, MFish encourages stakeholders to
comment on the potential need for person and vessel limits on the number of nonrock lobster pots that may be used by recreational fishers on any one day.
Statutory Considerations
109
In forming the regulatory amendment options the following statutory considerations
were taken into account.
a)
Section 5(a) requires decision-makers to act in a manner consistent with New
Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing, including the Law of the
Sea and the Fish Stocks Agreement as well as regional fishery management
agreements. Decision-makers must also act in a manner consistent with the
provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
MFish considers that the proposed options are consistent with both New
Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing and the provisions of the
Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
b)
Section 8 describes the purpose of the Act as being to provide for the
utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. The proposal
presents two options to further achieve the purpose of the Act by removing
constraints on utilisation caused by the MFish regulatory interpretation of rock
lobster pots and assessing the likely impacts to the sustainability of target
species and rock lobster fisheries.
c)
Section 9 requires the Minister of Fisheries to take into account that nonharvested associated or dependent species be maintained at or above a level
that ensures their long-term viability and that the biological diversity of the
aquatic environment should be maintained. Although available information is
limited, nothing suggests that the proposed action adversely affects any
92
associated or dependent species, as the incidental catch may remain alive and
in good condition in pots and can be returned to the water.
d)
Section 9 also requires the Minister to take into account the biological
diversity of the aquatic environment and the principle that habitat of particular
significance for fisheries management should be protected. The proposed
options discuss the impacts of increased use of potting gear, which is
considered to have a low impact on the benthic environment, thus creating a
low impact on the aquatic environment and habitats of significance. The
potential impacts of potting in previously unfished areas and ghost fishing by
lost pots were also discussed.
e)
Section 10 requires that decisions are based on the best available information,
taking into account any uncertainty in that information, and applying caution
when information is uncertain unreliable, or inadequate. The proposed
regulatory amendment options were developed based on the best available
information. MFish offers two alternatives for removing constraints on
utilisation while managing the associated risks to affected species and rock
lobster fisheries.
f)
Section 10 also requires that the absence or uncertainty of information should
not be used as a reason to postpone, or fail to take, any measure to achieve the
purpose of the Act. Uncertainty regarding the impacts of authorising potting
for particular fisheries was assessed in the management options presented.
MFish has proposed pot specifications in some fisheries to mitigate risks
where possible. MFish invites stakeholders to provide additional information
on the likely impacts of authorising potting for particular species.
g)
Section 297 empowers the Governor General to make regulations for certain
purposes. MFish considers that the proposed changes to the Fisheries
(Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 and the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing)
Regulations 1996 fit within the relevant provisions of section 297.
93
APPENDIX 1 - REGULATIONS RELATING TO USE AND
POSSESSION OF NON-ROCK LOBSTER POTS
Fisheries (Southland and Sub-Antarctic Areas Amateur Fishing) Regulations
1991
[3
Interpretation
[Blue cod pot—
(a) Means any pot (whether baited or not) that is capable of catching or holding blue cod;
and
(b) Includes any other device capable of catching, holding, or storing blue cod; but
(c) Does not include a rock lobster pot:]
Fisheries (Southland and Sub-Antarctic Areas Commercial Fishing) Regulations
1986
[2
Interpretation
[[Blue cod pot—
(a) Means any pot, whether baited or not, that is capable of catching or holding blue
cod; and
(b) Includes any other device capable of catching, holding, or storing blue cod; but
(c) Does not include a rock lobster pot:]]
[3F Marking of blue cod pots and fish holding pots
(1)
No [[commercial fisher]] shall use for fishing or have on board any fishing vessel and
fishing gear or any blue cod pot that does not have securely attached to it a surface float
that is clearly, permanently, and legibly marked with the registered number of the
vessel from which it is to be set or is being carried.
(2)
No [[commercial fisher]] shall use, or have on board any fishing vessel, any pot, bag,
or container capable of being used to hold or store fish at sea unless the pot, bag, or container
has its own surface buoy or float, and each surface buoy or float is clearly, permanently, and
legibly marked with the registered number of the vessel from which it is to be set or is being
carried.]
[14A Blue cod pots to be covered in mesh
No [[commercial fisher]] shall have on board any fishing vessel or use any blue cod pot
unless the blue cod pot is constructed entirely of square steel mesh in which the spaces are
not less than 48mm in width.]
94
Fisheries (South-East Area Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986
[10C Marking of blue cod pots and fish holding pots
(1)
No [[commercial fisher]] shall use for fishing or have on board any fishing vessel any
fishing gear or any blue cod pot that does not have securely attached to it a surface float
that is clearly, permanently and legibly marked with the registered number of the vessel
from which it is to be set or is being carried.
(2)
No [[commercial fisher]] shall use, or have on board any fishing vessel, any pot, bag,
or container capable of being used to hold or store fish at sea unless the pot, bag, or container
has its own surface buoy or float, and each surface buoy or float is clearly, permanently, and
legibly marked with the registered number of the vessel from which it is to be set or is being
carried.]
Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986
2
Interpretation
Ring pot or hoop net or pull pot means a circular frame across which netting is attached:
[25B
Apertures to be incorporated in rock lobster pots
[[(6)
This regulation does not apply to the use or possession of a bob or ring pot.]] ]
Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001
3
Interpretation
ring pot, hoop net, or pullpot means a circular frame across which netting is attached
63
Use of specified nets prohibited
(2)
Commercial fishers must not set, use, or possess baited nets other than ring
pots, [fyke nets,] hoop nets, or pullpots.
95
APPENDIX 2 – IMPACTS OF PROPOSED OPTIONS ON
AFFECTED FISH STOCKS
Option 1 – Status quo impacts on stock status
Snapper
110
The best available information projects that the total allowable catches (TACs) for all
snapper stocks are currently set either at levels that will maintain the stocks at the
biomass that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, or at levels that will enable
the stocks to increase to a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. 38
Octopus
111
MFish recently considered octopus for introduction to the QMS, but found it did not
meet the relevant criteria. As part of that analysis, MFish noted anecdotal information
that suggests significant amounts of octopus may be returned to sea in commercial
fisheries without being reported. While there might be some risk to octopus stocks
from this unreported catch, the fecundity and short lifespan of octopus species
alleviates some of this risk. Octopus, along with other non-QMS species, will be
evaluated annually to determine whether the stocks meet the criteria for QMS
introduction, which includes information to suggest sustainability or utilisation
concerns.
Blue cod
112
Available information suggests that for most quota management areas (BCO 1, 2, 3, 4,
5 and 8), recent commercial catch levels and current TACCs are considered
sustainable and are probably at levels which will allow the stocks to move towards
sizes that will support the maximum sustainable yield.
113
It is not known if the combined recreational and commercial catches in the Challenger
Fishery Management Area (BCO 7) are sustainable or if they are at levels that will
allow the stock to move towards a size that will support the maximum sustainable
yield. Blue cod is the most important recreational target finfish species in the
Marlborough Sounds. Approximately 83% of the total estimate recreational catch
from BCO 7 is taken from the Marlborough Sounds. The Minister of Fisheries
recently implemented a four-year closure to recreational fishing for blue cod in the
enclosed waters of Marlborough Sounds to address a decline in blue cod abundance.
Commercial fishers have also agreed not to fish in the enclosed Marlborough Sounds
area while the recreational closure is in force. MFish considers that blue cod stock
abundance concerns in the Marlborough Sounds may be addressed by the fishing
closure, which will be implemented on 1 October 2008.
38
Ministry of Fisheries (2008). Report from the Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2008: stock assessments
and yield estimates. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. 990p.
96
Paddle crabs
114
Although stock information is limited, the current potting practices in the paddle crab
fisheries and bycatch of paddle crab in other fisheries are unlikely to pose
sustainability concerns for these stocks. Paddle crab stocks are abundant throughout
most of their range and the fishery is probably only lightly exploited, particularly
since commercial landings likely are related to the availability of fishers and/or
market demands.
Deepwater crabs
115
Stock information is unavailable for deepwater crabs, but the total allowable
commercial catch (TACC) has not yet been fully harvested for any of the deepwater
crab stocks. An exploratory commercial fishery is in the early stages. MFish
considers that maintaining the status quo provides little to no risk to stock
sustainability as the deepwater crab TACCs were set at a level to ensure sustainable
utilisation.
Hagfish
116
No estimates of current hagfish biomass or sustainable yield are available. The stock
will be evaluated against the QMS introduction criteria each year, which include
variations in catch outside a specified threshold or other information that may suggest
a sustainability or utilisation concern.
Option 2 – Limited authorisation of potting gear
Snapper
117
Option 2 does not propose to authorise potting for snapper, so the proposed outcome
would have no direct impacts on the status of snapper stocks.
Octopus
118
MFish considers that the risk of a developing pot fishery to octopus stocks is
unknown, but likely low. MFish recently considered introducing octopus the QMS in
2009, but proposed to defer introduction based on available information. The QMS
introduction analysis found that although actual catch of octopus may be much higher
than the levels reported, there is little risk under the status quo to maintaining the
stock at a level to meet future needs.
119
There may be some additional risk to octopus stocks under Option 2 compared to
Option 1, since development of a potting target fishery would increase the already
unknown bycatch of octopus. However, MFish monitors all non-QMS stocks each
year against the criteria for possible QMS introductions. Although octopus was not
proposed for introduction in 2009, it will be evaluated for changes to the relevant
criteria each year. Criteria for possible QMS introduction include a significant
variation in catch, identification for introduction by stakeholders, or other information
that suggests a sustainability or utilisation concern. This annual review would
monitor the effects of developmental pot fishing on octopus stocks.
97
Blue cod
120
MFish considers that blue cod pots currently in use are not a risk to blue cod stocks in
quota management areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8. The status of the BCO 7 stock is
uncertain, but the recreational fishing closure (effective 1 October 2008) in the
Marlborough Sounds may address some stock concerns about the decline in blue cod
abundance in that area.
121
MFish considers that the Option 2 proposal to extend the BCO 5 pot specification of
48 mm to all other commercial blue cod stocks would create consistency within the
commercial regulations. It would also enable undersize blue cod to escape from pots,
reducing the mortality of undersize fish. This may provide a sustainability benefit for
blue cod stocks in fishing areas outside of BCO 5.
Paddle crabs, deepwater crabs and hagfish
122
Option 2 proposes to authorise potting for paddle crabs, deepwater crabs and hagfish.
In practice, fishers currently using pots to catch these species would be explicitly
authorised to continue. Pot specifications for these species would be deemed
unnecessary under Option 2 since MFish considers that current potting practices do
not create stock sustainability concerns for these species, and explicitly authorising
current potting practices to continue would provide for more credible fisheries
management.
123
As discussed in the Option 1 assessment, the current potting activities for paddle crabs
and deepwater crabs are not likely to negatively impact on those stocks since
information suggests that survival rates are generally good for crabs caught in pots.
Hagfish is a non-QMS species and will be subject to the same annual monitoring
process described for octopus. The annual review will monitor the effects of the
developing pot fishery and assess the impacts on hagfish stocks.
124
It is possible, but unlikely, that pot fishing effort for these species would increase
from other fishers if Option 2 was implemented. MFish would continue to monitor
these fisheries to evaluate whether there is increased effort, and could consider
establishing pot specifications for these species in the future if information raises
concerns about stock sustainability.
Option 3 – Permissive authorisation of potting gear
Snapper
125
The risk to snapper stocks from development of a potting fishery is unknown since no
information is available on the effects of potting on undersize snapper. It is, therefore,
not possible to recommend appropriate pot configurations or regulatory specifications
at this time. However, commercial snapper catches are limited by the TACC for each
stock, and the snapper stock assessments take the overall levels of commercial catch
into account. The best available information projects that the TACs for all snapper
stocks are currently set either at levels that will maintain the stocks at the biomass that
98
can produce the maximum sustainable yield, or at levels that will enable the stocks to
increase to a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. 39
Octopus and blue cod
126
The impacts of Option 3 on octopus and blue cod stocks are identical to those
described in Option 2. MFish considers that the risk of a developing pot fishery to
octopus stocks is unknown, but likely low. Extension of the 48mm minimum mesh
size to all other commercial blue cod fishing areas may provide a sustainability
benefit for blue cod stocks outside of BCO 5.
Paddle crabs, deepwater crabs and hagfish
127
Option 3 proposes to authorise potting for paddle crabs, deepwater crabs and hagfish
in the regulations. In practice, fishers currently using pots to catch these species
would be explicitly authorised to continue and as in Option 2, no pot specifications
would be required. Pot specifications for these species would be deemed unnecessary
under Option 3 since MFish considers that current potting practices do not create
stock sustainability concerns for these species, nor do they impact on rock lobster
fisheries.
128
As discussed in the Option 2 assessment, the current potting activities for paddle crabs
and deepwater crabs are not likely to negatively impact on those stocks since
information suggests that survival rates are generally good for crabs caught in pots.
Hagfish is a non-QMS species and will be subject to the same annual monitoring
process described for octopus. The annual review will monitor the effects of the
developing pot fishery and assess the impacts on hagfish stocks.
129
It is possible, but unlikely, that potting effort for these species would increase from
other fishers if Option 3 was implemented. MFish would continue to monitor these
fisheries to evaluate whether there is increased effort, and could consider establishing
pot specifications for these species in the future if information indicates reasons for
concerns about stock sustainability.
39
Ministry of Fisheries (2008). Report from the Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2008: stock assessments
and yield estimates. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. 990p.
99
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT - REVIEW OF
POTTING DEFINITIONS
Executive summary
1
The current definition of ‘rock lobster pot’ in the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing)
Regulations 2001 and the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 1986
(Regulations) is broad and has the potential to apply to most pots, regardless of the
intended target species. Rock lobster pots are required to have escape gaps of a
certain number and dimension. Pots not meeting these requirements are likely
unlawful.
2
The far-reaching rock lobster pot regulatory definition affects other potting fisheries
in two ways: (1) pots that fishers would like to use to target species other than rock
lobster are considered unlawful, which constrains utilisation, and (2) pots are currently
used in non-rock lobster fisheries that may be unlawful. In these instances, the
Regulations unnecessarily constrain utilisation.
3
It is unlikely that the regulatory definition of rock lobster pot was intended to
constrain the use of pots to target species other than rock lobster. Potting is an acceptable
method of harvest that should be authorised to the extent possible. The Regulations
should be amended to remove the constraints on other pot fisheries without negatively
impacting on the affected stocks or rock lobster fisheries. Two regulatory amendment
options are proposed. The Ministry of Fisheries does not have a preferred option at this
stage and seeks input from tangata whenua and stakeholders on the proposed options.
4
This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has addressed all relevant aspects of the RIS
requirements contained in Cabinet Office Circular CO (07) 3. Where a requirement has
not been addressed it is considered to be not relevant to this proposal.
Adequacy statement
5
This RIS has been reviewed by the Ministry of Fisheries’ Regulatory Impact Analysis
Review Committee and is considered adequate according to the criteria agreed by
Cabinet.
Status quo and problem
6
The rock lobster pot definition in the Regulations is broad and has the potential to
apply to most pots that fishers currently use, or would like to use, to take other species.
100
The effect of this is that all fishing pots (with the exception of lawful Southland
commercial blue cod pots, ring pots, and pull pots) that can catch, hold or store rock
lobster must comply with escape aperture requirements specified in the Regulations, or
they are unlawful. These aperture requirements may render pots less successful, or even
useless, for catching other target species if marketable fish can easily escape through the
apertures.
7
The regulatory rock lobster pot definition and specifications were developed to
address specific management needs in the rock lobster fisheries. If the Regulations are
not amended, fishery development would continue to be constrained. In addition,
enforcement of the Regulations would continue to cause confusion among fishers as to
whether pots may be lawfully used for other target species. The application of the
regulatory rock lobster pot definition creates a conflict between enforcement of the
Regulations and the objective of value maximisation for fisheries in New Zealand.
Credible fisheries management is also diminished by the current situation.
8
This excessive constraint on other fisheries is unintended and undesirable. Pots are a
relatively benign method of capture compared to some other fishing methods and should
be authorised wherever possible. The impacts to captured fish are usually minimal and in
fact, fish are often alive and in good condition when taken with pots. Pots also have
limited impacts on the benthic environment.
Objectives
9
Remove constraints on undeveloped potting fisheries where possible and reduce
enforcement difficulties for existing potting fisheries, without negatively impacting on the
target and bycatch stocks or rock lobster fisheries.
Options
10
Two alternatives are proposed to the status quo:
Option 2 – MFish preferred option
11
The Ministry of Fisheries would recommend amending the Regulations to allow
potting for any species. Specifications could be developed and added to the Regulations
for other target species and enforced if the Ministry of Fisheries determines they are
needed, but pots would be authorised in the Regulations and lawful in every instance. In
practice, the current regulatory pot specifications for rock lobster would not change.
12
Under this option, the sustainability risk to current and future fisheries taken with pots
is likely low. However, the risk to snapper stocks and rock lobster fisheries may be
greater under this option since potting is authorised for all species and the impacts are
likely unknown. This option provides the most potential for increased value from
development of pot fisheries for non-rock lobster species.
101
Option 3
13
The ministry of fisheries would recommend amending the regulations to allow potting
only in fisheries for which pot specifications are defined in the regulations or are deemed
not needed. Potting would also be authorised in fisheries where the ministry of fisheries
has determined that pot specifications are not needed. In practice, the current regulatory
pot specifications for rock lobster would not change.
14
This option is a conservative approach since pots would have to be explicitly
authorised in the Regulations to be lawful. The Ministry of Fisheries considers it is
desirable to authorise potting wherever possible, and Option 1 provides for increased
utilisation and more credible fisheries management, with minimal risk to the target and
bycatch species and rock lobster fisheries. Option 1 would enable more credible fisheries
management by clarifying the Regulations, but would still constrain utilisation for the
snapper pot fishery and for development of other as-yet unspecified potting fisheries in
the future.
Implementation and review
15
If regulatory changes are needed, the Ministry of Fisheries proposes to implement
regulatory amendments for commercial and amateur fishing methods on 1 June 2009. All
regulatory changes would be carried out by the Ministry of Fisheries. Commercial fishers
would be notified of changes via material distributed by FishServe, sent to the New
Zealand Seafood Industry Council. Notification would also be posted on the Ministry of
Fisheries external website, which would inform commercial and amateur fishers. Fishers
would also be notified of the regulatory changes through contact with Ministry of
Fisheries Surveillance Officers and Fisheries Operations staff. Enforcement of the
proposed options would be achieved through fishers’ interactions with Ministry of
Fisheries Compliance Staff.
Consultation
16
The Ministry of Fisheries received input from affected fishers regarding constraints on
undeveloped and existing pot fisheries in May and June 2008. The proposed regulatory
amendment options were based on this input. In September 2008, all affected persons
will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed regulatory changes. During this
time, the Ministry of Fisheries will consult with all persons and organisations considered
by the Minister to be representative of those classes of persons having an interest in
options authorise potting for species other than rock lobster. This consultation will
include (but not be limited to) tangata whenua, commercial and non-commercial fishing
sectors, and environmental organisations.
17
Once feedback from the above consultation has been reviewed and final advice
drafted and considered by the Minister of Fisheries, the Ministry will also seek feedback
from relevant government departments.
102
INITIAL POSITION PAPER –
MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHING CHARTER VESSEL
REGISTRATION AND REPORTING
Executive Summary
18
The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) proposes to introduce regulations that would
require all marine recreational charter vessel operators to register their vessels with
MFish and report monthly on their fishing activity. For some species in some areas,
catch reporting will also be required. The reporting scheme may be phased in around
the country over a number of years.
19
A lack of information on the activities and catch of marine amateur fishers is a serious
impediment to better management of shared fisheries. Good information is required
in the setting of sustainable total allowable catch limits, for allocation of uses between
sectors, in spatial planning processes across government, and to enable the possibility
of specific management action at a local level – by MFish or by stakeholders
themselves.
20
Currently, there is very limited information available on the size and distribution of
the marine recreational charter fishing fleet, the amount of fishing activity carried out,
species taken or quantities of catch. However, it is evident that the number of charter
vessels has increased significantly over the past decade and activities of the fleet have
changed. MFish believes that a reporting programme for marine recreational charter
vessels will significantly benefit the management of shared fisheries.
21
The proposed regulations would require charter vessel operators to do the following:
ƒ
Register – Those meeting the definition of a charter vessel operator would be
required to register their vessels annually with MFish, providing details of
their vessel and business. A fee of $150 per annum to assist with the
administrative costs of the reporting scheme is proposed.
ƒ
Activity Reporting – Activity would be reported by location (latitude and
longitude data), and include the number of fishers, time fished, and main
species caught. Information should be recorded at the fishing location on a
log-book form provided by MFish.
ƒ
Catch Reporting – Where catch includes fish of stocks nominated for catch
reporting, the number of fish of that stock caught at each location will be
required on the reporting form. Weights for large game-fish species could be
required on a case by case basis.
ƒ
Daily reporting forms would be returned to MFish monthly by the 15th of the
month following the date of fishing. Nil returns will be required if no fishing
takes place in a given month.
103
22
It is proposed that the registration and reporting system is introduced by regulations
made under section 297 of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act). MFish expects that these
regulations will be in place by June 2009. The earliest the registration and reporting
requirements will be applied is April 2010.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements
23
This IPP has been deemed not significant 40 in terms of the Regulatory Impact
Statement guidelines, and has been reviewed by MFish.
24
For more information on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Requirements and the
meaning of the word ‘significant’ with reference to an IPP, please refer to the
Ministry of Economic Development website www.med.govt.nz.
Purpose
25
The purpose of this paper is to consult interested parties on proposals to introduce
regulations that would require all recreational charter vessel operators to register their
vessels with MFish and report monthly on their fishing activity. For some species in
some areas, catch reporting will also be required.
Background
26
The proposals contained in this IPP follow from consultation on “Shared Fisheries
Proposals for Managing New Zealand’s Shared Fisheries: A Public Discussion
Paper,” released by MFish in October 2006. Shared fisheries are those in which
commercial, amateur and customary fishers all participate.
27
The ultimate aim of shared fisheries’ management is to provide opportunities for New
Zealanders to get the best value – the best mix of financial value and other values –
from the use of our fisheries resources. Improved management systems will aim to
ensure that the use of fisheries resources reflects the value placed on them by different
groups. As with all fisheries management, there is an overriding need to protect the
sustainability of fisheries resources.
28
At present it is difficult to assess the value of fisheries to the customary and amateur
sectors because there is too little information available about who is catching what,
where and when. Lack of good information on catch makes it difficult to manage
fisheries sustainably.
29
Relatively good information is provided by commercial fishers through legislative
reporting requirements. There is an obligation to report customary take under the
customary fishing regulations, and efforts are being made to improve this reporting as
provisions of these regulations are taken up by iwi.
30
For the amateur catch, information is currently collected mainly through surveys. So
far, two major phone-and-diary surveys have randomly sampled the entire New
40
The RIS guidelines define a proposal as significant if it has a cost in excess of $1 million or affect more than
1000 businesses.
104
Zealand population to find out who goes fishing and what they catch. These surveys
are expensive and time consuming and have produced uncertain catch estimates that
differ between the surveys by up to 300%. More accurate results are needed to ensure
the effective management of fisheries where the amateur take represents a significant
proportion of the total take. Better information is also essential if amateur interests are
to be properly recognised and taken into account in effective management of shared
fisheries.
31
One part of the problem of better information is a need to find out more about what
fishers on recreational charter vessels are catching. Where charter catches are a
significant proportion of total amateur catch for a stock good information on these
catches could contribute to improved assessments of the sustainability of overall catch
limits. At present, charter vessel operators are not subject to specific regulations, and
it is not clear what effects charter fishing is having on the fisheries. However, charter
operators are in a good position to provide accurate information about their activities
and clients’ catch.
32
Recent research has shown that the number of marine recreational fishing charter
vessels has increased by at least 200 vessels (or 55%) in the last decade, with around
600 known to be operating in 2006. 41 Other studies over the last ten years provide
some idea of the character of the fleet. Developments – such as the increasing
popularity of the West Coast blue-fin tuna fishery – are known through the media and
contact between fishers and MFish staff. Managers and stakeholders have expressed
the concern that we need improved information on recreational charter activity. The
limited information available is insufficient to adequately inform potential
management measures.
Objectives
33
34
The proposals put forward in this position paper aim to address the basic information
deficit for marine recreational charter fishing as a contribution to improving overall
information on amateur fishing. The specific objectives are to generate and monitor
information on:
1.
The size and distribution of the marine recreational fishing charter fleet
2.
The amount of fishing effort being applied by the fleet, by location and main
target fish-stocks
3.
The number of fish of important stocks being caught by fishers on recreational
charter vessels
Establishing the number of vessels involved and where they operate (objective 1) is
basic to improving information on the sector. Regular updates of this type of
information are required because the sector is changing and expanding over time.
Without this information, any estimate of, or allowance for the impact that this fishing
may be having on fish-stocks or on other interests can only be based on anecdotal
evidence.
41
Anderson, J. 2006, Indicators of Recreational Fishing Activity in New Zealand 1990 -2006, Internal Report
Prepared for the Ministry of Fisheries. Wellington.
105
35
Knowing the number of vessels that operate at some time during the year is important
but does not indicate how much fishing activity is occurring. Objective 2 is to
monitor the effort being applied by the charter fleet to fishing particular stocks, and
the distribution of that effort. This will provide the basis to assess trends in resource
use by the sector that can be taken into account in management decisions.
36
In particular fisheries, knowing the actual number of fish being taken by amateur
fishers from charter vessels (objective 3) would be even more useful to management.
However, the cost of collecting, processing and storing the information must be
weighed up against the benefits.
37
Catch information could significantly contribute to stock assessment in some cases,
which is important for sustainable management, but such information can also be very
valuable for management across a range of planning and decision-making
circumstances. Having clear factual information can often speed up discussions
among MFish staff and stakeholders about the potential need for management
changes. Collecting catch information needs to be considered on a case by case basis
on its merits for the fish stock concerned. Particular stocks are considered for catch
reporting later in this paper.
Summary of Options
Option 1– Status Quo
38
Under current management arrangements recreational charter vessel operators do not
provide any information to MFish on their operations, activities or catch taken by their
clients. This means that both the impacts of their activities and their needs as a sector
are largely unknown and unable to be taken into account in management.
39
Currently, although operators are required to register passenger vessels with Maritime
New Zealand, this register is focused on safe ship management and does not require
operators to identify if they are fishing charters. Information on the sector currently
available to MFish is very limited and derived from one-off surveys or studies.
40
Continuation of the status quo would mean that little new information on charter
vessel activity and catch would become available to support management of shared
fisheries in the foreseeable future.
Option 2– Introduction of Activity and Limited Catch Reporting by
Recreational Charter Vessels [MFish Preferred Option]
41
This option would introduce new regulations requiring recreational fishing charter
vessel operators to provide reports of their fishing activity, and would include catch
reporting for selected fish-stocks.
42
It should be clearly noted that the reporting scheme proposed here would not change
or eliminate any other legal requirements relating to charter vessel operators or their
clients. For example, all provisions of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations
1986 – including individual daily bag limits – would still apply.
106
43
A recreational fishing charter vessel operator is a person or company that provides a
vessel and crew (eg a master) for hire and allows clients to fish from that vessel under
the Amateur Fishing Regulations.
44
Under this proposal, operators would be required to register their vessels annually
with MFish, providing details of their vessel and business. A fee of $150 per annum to
assist with the administrative costs of the reporting scheme is proposed.
45
Registered operators will be issued with log-books of reporting forms that need to be
completed during fishing trips. Activity would be reported by location (latitude and
longitude), and include the number of fishers, time fished, and main species caught.
Where catch includes fish of stocks nominated for catch reporting, the number of fish
of that stock caught at each location will be required on the reporting form. Weights
for large game-fish species could be required on a case by case basis.
46
Books of reporting forms will be provided. Forms will provide for multiple locations,
and a new form will be used for each day. 42 Forms will be submitted to MFish before
the 15th of the month following fishing. A freepost facility will be provided and
electronic data submission may be available. Nil returns will be required where no
activity is carried out during the month. The appearance of the log book forms has not
yet been determined. The forms will be developed by a small working group
comprised of MFish staff, charter vessel operators and fisheries scientists. The
development process will include having charter vessel operators test prototype forms.
47
MFish will monitor compliance with registration and reporting requirements through
a programme of inspections, and through checking that all registered operators report
each month. It would be an offence to operate without being registered with MFish,
to report incorrect information or to fail to report within required timeframes.
Penalties will apply for these offences.
48
MFish recognises that a number of charter operators use their vessels for ‘noncharter” purposes (e.g. for family or personal recreational fishing). This proposal does
not prevent this from continuing. If this proposal proceeds, however, our assumption
would be that a registered amateur charter vessel was acting in that capacity when
fishing. Given this, we are interested in your views on how we identify ‘non-charter’
uses of a registered amateur charter vessel. This might include a notification (eg a
phone call to the local MFish office) to indicate a trip where a vessel was not
operating as a charter vessel.
49
MFish has policies and procedures for dealing with commercially sensitive
information that will be applied to all the information provided in the proposed
reporting scheme. Latitude and longitude data would be aggregated to protect
information on individuals’ specific fishing sites.
Other Potential Approaches
50
42
Other means of obtaining improved information on recreational fishing charter vessel
activity and catch have been suggested. These include regular surveys of operators
using voluntary log-books over a specific period, and survey and monitoring of catch
See proposed draft form attached as appendix 1.
107
through dockside sampling of vessel landings. Such voluntary survey methods are
available now and can be applied through regular research programmes. This would
not change under the regulatory proposals in this paper, and such methods may
supplement and help to verify data provided through a reporting requirement.
However, on their own, these methods are not able to provide sufficient information
to meet the objectives for this proposal.
Rationale for Management Options
51
The proposals put forward address a small part of the greater challenge of improving
information available for the management of shared fisheries. A key issue in
obtaining reliable information from the amateur sector is the cost associated with
accessing the large number of widely dispersed individuals participating in the
fisheries. Reporting by recreational charter fishing operators provides a cost effective
means to collect information on the activities of a significant sub-sector of resource
users.
52
Charter operations can focus significant fishing effort on very specific locations, and
this can pose a risk to local populations of fish, particularly for species that adopt a
relatively confined territory. Information that is available to MFish on the charter
sector indicates that the number of vessels providing charter fishing services is
expanding significantly over time. Without further information on the activity of
these vessels it is not possible to know the degree of impact this trend might be having
on fisheries, or how other management measures in the marine environment might
affect the interests of this sector.
53
Growth in vessel numbers and activity of the sector may be spread across locations
and stocks so as to have little significant impact, but in some regions it may be
focused on particular vulnerable stocks or localised populations of species such as
häpuku-bass. The proposed measures will provide the information to ensure that
sustainability of stocks (and potentially of localised populations) can be better
managed and the needs of the charter sector taken into account when catch limits are
set.
54
Where spatial management measures such as marine reserves are being considered by
government, MFish is currently not able to inform cross-departmental processes about
the extent of existing use by amateur fishers and by charter operators in particular.
The reporting proposed would provide up to date information on the nature and extent
of existing use of the marine environment by this sub-sector.
55
The proposal focuses on a strategy to directly access the information required for
these purposes. Registration of operators and vessels will provide a definitive list of
stakeholders and the nature and distribution of the fleet. Activity reporting will allow
assessment of the extent of current activity and of trends over time that may affect
management. Catch reporting is proposed to be targeted only at stocks where it can
make a significant direct contribution to management over and above activity
reporting.
56
The proposal includes a requirement for reporting retained catch of five species in
limited areas on introduction of the regulations. These are:
108
•
häpuku & bass (areas 1 & 2)
•
kingfish (areas 1 & 2)
•
blue cod (areas 3, 5 & 7)
•
Southern bluefin tuna
•
Pacific bluefin tuna
57
The first three of these species are vulnerable to depletion at a spatial scale of less
than that of the quota management areas. For häpuku-bass and kingfish, the charter
sector is believed to take a large proportion of the catch taken by the whole amateur
sector. Information on catch from charters would enable significant improvements in
the current ability to assess the sustainability of these stocks. Blue cod has been
shown to be particularly vulnerable to local depletion, and where charters are
targeting this species, improved information may be critical to ensuring sustainable
management.
58
New Zealand has international obligations in relation to management of the bluefin
tuna species. Southern bluefin tuna is subject to an international quota regime which
needs to account for all take including the increasing amateur catch. A significant
proportion of the amateur catch is being taken by a limited number of charter
operators. Pacific bluefin tuna is a similar species caught in the same fishery. Catch
reporting of this species in conjunction with Southern bluefin will allow
comprehensive monitoring of the seemingly rapid development of this high value
charter fishery.
59
Further stocks could be introduced for catch reporting at a future date where this could
significantly assist management. However, such further reporting requirements would
be subject to consultation on regulatory change in the same manner that the current
proposals are being dealt with. Requirements for the addition of species could be
determined through stakeholder involvement in the development of fisheries plans.
Assessment of Management Options
Option 1 – Status Quo
Impact
60
This option would maintain the current situation whereby there are no requirements
on recreational charter vessel operators to provide information on their fishing-related
activity and on the catch taken by their clients.
61
Fisheries managers will continue to have a very limited understanding of the number
of charter vessels, their location and activities that could be used to assist fisheries
management. Additionally, there would be no catch information from charter vessel
operators to contribute to improved stock assessment or to help inform management
decisions.
109
Costs
62
The costs of the status quo include risks to stock sustainability and lack of
consideration of the needs of existing resource users when management decisions are
made, particularly in the case of spatial allocation decisions. Other stakeholder
groups and tangata whenua have expressed concern that recreational charter fishing is
a significant fisheries sector whose impacts are not subject to monitoring and
assessment. Lack of action on issues such as this has a cost in terms of the credibility
of the Ministry and the entire management regime.
Benefits
63
There are no additional benefits associated with continuation of the status quo.
Option 2– Creation of new Recreational Charter Vessel regulations
[MFish Preferred Option]
Impact
64
Under this option all charter vessel operators would be required to register their
vessels and report information on their activity. For selected stocks, charter vessels
operators would also be required to report their clients’ catch. This will involve
recording information on location, fisher numbers, time fished and species caught for
each fishing location visited. Where catch recording is required for specific stocks,
some cooperation of clients with vessel crew will be required to notify when fish of
the nominated species are caught and retained. Every effort will be made to make
log-books as simple and user friendly as possible.
65
MFish expects that these regulations will be in place by June 2009. The earliest the
registration and reporting requirement will be applied is April 2010. Due to potential
funding constraints MFish proposes that the regulations will empower the Chief
Executive to phase the introduction of reporting over time. Before the date the
regulations become effective MFish will attempt to ensure that all charter operators
are made aware of the new regulations and provide information and assistance on the
details of their obligations, including how to complete reports and submit information
to MFish.
Costs
66
Direct costs of this proposal to charter operators are limited. MFish consider that the
annual administrative charge of $150 will be of minor significance for a charter
operator, and the indirect costs associated with reporting are low. Recording the data
in log-books at the time of fishing should quickly become a routine part of fishing
operations. For a limited number of operators with smaller open vessels, there may be
some cost associated with ensuring log-books are protected from water damage.
67
This proposal will mean significant costs are incurred by MFish in establishing
databases and compliance systems, and in ongoing costs of data entry and analysis.
The estimated establishment capital costs and recurrent annual costs of option 2 are
shown in Table 1.
110
Table 1 - Estimated costs of Option 2 ($ ‘000) 43
MFish Costs
2009/10
2010/11
Subsequent
years
Capital
cost
(Initial cost of
establishment)
$140 – 280
Operating
Cost
$176 – 263
$176 – 228
$161 – 213
Income from
registration
$24 – 30
$72 – 90
$72 – 90
Net operating
costs
$146 – 233
$104 – 138
$91 – 123
68
Estimated costs do not include the potential for implementation of electronic data
transfer. This is likely to be considered for development within the first five years,
but the decision to invest in such a system will be based on net savings over time
through reduced data entry costs. Funding for this initiative has not yet been
identified. As noted above, MFish proposes to provide for the phased introduction of
reporting to align with funding decisions.
69
The proposal will result in necessary changes being made to compliance systems.
Such changes incur an initial cost, and this has been included in the capital
expenditure estimate shown in Table 1. Costs of compliance activities, such as
inspections, issuing of infringement notices, and prosecutions will be incorporated
into existing MFish priorities.
Benefits
70
71
Registration, activity reporting and targeted catch reporting would provide the
following information to assist management:
•
The size and distribution of the recreational fishing charter fleet
•
The amount of fishing effort being applied by the fleet, by location and main
species caught
•
The number of fish of important stocks being caught by fishers on recreational
charter vessels.
Establishing the number of vessels involved and where they operate is basic to
improving information on the sector. In identifying all marine charter operators,
registration will provide the basis for implementation of the reporting system.
Registration information would, for the first time, allow fisheries managers and
stakeholders to establish the extent and distribution of the charter fleet and how this is
changing over time. By itself this would be a significant improvement on currently
43
Figures are in New Zealand dollars and exclude GST. These figures are sourced from current costs of
equivalent services required in the management of commercial fisheries.
111
available information and allow better consideration of the sectors needs in
management.
72
Other benefits of stakeholder identification include the ability to for MFish and the
sector to communicate over issues of concern in management of the fishery.
Operators may wish to participate in and contribute to fisheries management as
individuals or express a collective interest as a group. Registration information could
provide a basis for such collective action.
73
Effort information – comprising information in fisher hours by location and target
stocks – would better inform estimates of, and allowances for the impact that fishing
is having on fish-stocks or on other interests in the fishery. Effort information will be
particularly valuable where the sector appears to be expanding and activities of the
fleet are changing over time. Regular updates of this type of information will provide
a time series of activity from which managers will be able to identify and monitor
trends.
74
In particular fisheries, knowing the actual number of fish being caught by recreational
fishers from charter vessels would be even more useful to management. In some
cases this will be able to contribute directly to the ability of scientists to assess stocks.
This will apply to species such as häpuku-bass and kingfish, where a large proportion
of the amateur catch is believed to be taken by charter vessels. The ultimate benefit in
these cases will be more accurate estimates for sustainable catch limits and assisting
management decisions such as setting of allowances for amateur fishing from the total
allowable catch.
75
In other fisheries a broad range of management considerations will benefit from
activity and catch reporting information. In spatial planning, for example, such as for
marine reserves and other types of marine protected area, area closures, or method
restrictions, consideration of the known extent of charter fishing activity could make a
significant difference to outcomes. Some stocks are vulnerable to local population
depletion due to their territorial habits. The information that would be collected under
this proposal could provide warning signals of declining catches by location, and
provide the ability for management to respond early – before an area becomes
significantly depleted.
76
Some of the benefits from activity and catch reporting for particular stocks are
discussed below in relation to those stocks suggested for initial implementation of
catch reporting.
77
A specific benefit for the general effort to improve information on amateur catch from
this reporting scheme would be from the use of the data collected as a calibration tool
to better interpret existing survey data.
Stocks proposed for the initial implementation of catch
reporting
78
The following stocks have been proposed by MFish for initial implementation of
catch reporting. A brief rationale is given for the need for catch information on each
of the stocks. Comments are invited from stakeholders on the list.
112
Häpuku & Bass (HPB1, HPB2)
79
These large groper species are believed to be somewhat territorial. They live within
specific local areas on deep rock reefs and many do not move around a great deal.
This limits the local population of large fish to the carrying capacity of the reef, and
makes them vulnerable to being “fished out.” These fish will eventually be replaced
by smaller recruits, but areas may take some time to recover if they are fished too
hard.
80
Significant tonnages of HPB are taken by commercial fishers around the country with
commercial catch limits of 481 tonnes and 266 tonnes in areas 1 and 2 respectively.
In 1998, the catch from recreational charter vessels was estimated at around 170
tonnes for these two stocks, and total amateur catch may be considerably higher.
However, this is the only information currently available on volumes of fish taken by
recreational charters in these fisheries.
81
The significance of the charter catch as a proportion of the total known catch makes
this information important to stock assessment. Evidence that charter effort has
markedly increased over the past decade suggests that regular collection of catch
information from charter vessels will be useful to management at the stock level. At a
local level, location specific data is likely to inform scientific understanding of the
fishery and management decisions.
Kingfish (KIN1, KIN2)
82
Kingfish are large fast swimming species popular with recreational fishers. They
exhibit some tendency to long-term local residency, which makes them vulnerable to
being locally depleted. Very limited information is available on the stocks and charter
vessels are believed to contribute significantly to the amateur catch.
83
Although no longer significantly targeted by commercial fishers, there is a significant
bycatch of kingfish in some pelagic trawl fisheries. The kingfish caught in this way
are of low net value to commercial fishers and are a loss to the amateur interest in the
species. Catch information from recreational charter vessels for kingfish is the only
potential means to generate an assessment of the relative state of the stocks.
Blue Cod (BCO3, BCO5)
84
Blue cod is the southern iconic species with significant commercial and recreational
take. Throughout its distribution, it is considered that there are many, largely
independent sub-stocks, and, therefore, this species is susceptible to localised
depletion. While southland stocks seem to be more resilient to high levels of fishing
effort, recent potting surveys have indicated decreases in relative abundance,
especially in the northern part of the South Island.
85
Key fisheries (Kaikoura, Motunau, Banks Peninsula, North Otago, Foveaux
Strait/Stewart Island & Fiordland) have seen a rapid and significant increase in charter
fishing capacity. With the closure of the Marlborough Sounds and declining
availability in Canterbury/North Canterbury, there is a growing transfer of effort
southwards within the fishery. Much of this increased effort is provided by the
charter industry as this eliminates the cost of towing boats over significant distances.
113
86
These changes occurring in the fishery are increasing pressure for management
intervention to ensure the continued sustainability of the fishery. While MFish has
data on the commercial catch and a developing time series of relative abundance from
potting surveys, the addition of real time data from this rapidly developing sector
would contribute significantly to the ability to make justifiable, enduring management
decisions that will be accepted by all sectors.
Blue Cod (BCO7)
87
This iconic fishery has been under very heavy pressure from recreational fishers
particularly within the Marlborough Sounds but also with a developing charter fishery
near Haast and South Westland. Anecdotal information suggests that charter
operators working out of both Havelock and Wellington are taking large numbers of
recreational fishers into both Tory channel and the outer Marlborough Sounds. Over
the next few years MFish will be developing a comprehensive management plan for
the challenger mixed fishery. Having more detailed information would help inform
the planning process and monitor the fishery.
Southern Bluefin Tuna and Pacific Bluefin Tuna (STN1, TOR1)
88
The large size and sporting qualities of these species have captured considerable
interest from big game fishers mainly fishing from charter vessels on the West Coast
of the South Island. New Zealand has international obligations in relation to
management of the bluefin tuna species. Southern bluefin tuna is subject to an
international quota regime which needs to account for all take including the increasing
amateur catch. A majority of the amateur catch is being taken by a limited number of
charter operators. Reporting of catch from these operators will enable more accurate
management of New Zealand’s allocation of this species.
89
Pacific bluefin tuna is a similar species caught in the same fishery. It is not subject to
an international quota regime, but New Zealand has obligations to ensure sustainable
management of this species under international agreements. Catch reporting of this
species in conjunction with Southern bluefin will allow comprehensive monitoring of
the seemingly rapid development of this high value charter fishery.
Statutory Considerations
90
In considering the proposed amendments, the Minister is required to follow relevant
statutory criteria contained in the Act. These criteria are set out below.
91
Section 5 (a) and (b): There is a wide range of international obligations relating to
fishing (including sustainability and utilisation of fish stocks and maintaining
biodiversity). MFish considers that the proposal is consistent with issues arising
under international obligations and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries
Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
92
Section 10 states that the best available information should be taken into account
when making decisions that affect utilisation or sustainability of fishery resources.
Best available information means the best information that, in the particular
circumstances, is available without unreasonable cost, effort, or time. The
114
information that would be made available through reporting under this proposal would
be the best available information on recreational catch from charter vessels if the costs
are considered reasonable.
93
Section 189 enables the chief executive to require persons providing vessels for hire
for the purpose of enabling persons to take fish, aquatic life or seaweed to keep and
provide accounts and records, and provide to the chief executive such returns and
information, as may be required by or under regulations made under the Act.
94
Section 297(1)(h) prescribes the power to make regulations outlining the form in
which these returns are to be kept and provided, including timing of completion.
115
Appendix I – Indicative example of a log book form
Recreational Charter Fishing Activity Reporting Form
Date
Vessel Name
Client #
Master
FMA #
Activity Report
Location
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Location
Lat/Long
Number of
Fishers
Hours
Fished
Main Species Caught
Catch Report: Number of fish retained by location and stock code
Species
Location Number (from activity report)
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
HPB
KIN
BCO
Operator Name
Operator Signature
116
9
10
MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHING CHARTER VESSEL
REGISTRATION AND REPORTING – REGULATORY
IMPACT STATEMENT
Executive Summary
1. The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) proposes to introduce regulations that would
require all marine recreational charter vessel operators to register their vessels with
MFish and report monthly on their fishing activity. For some species in some areas,
catch reporting will also be required. A lack of information on the activities and catch
of amateur fishers is a serious impediment to better management of shared fisheries.
Specifically, there is very limited information available on the size and distribution of
the recreational charter fishing fleet, the amount of fishing activity carried out, species
taken or quantities of catch. MFish believes that a reporting programme for marine
recreational charter vessels will significantly benefit the management of shared
fisheries.
Adequacy Statement
2. This RIS has been reviewed internally by MFish’s Steering committee and found to
be adequate according to the criteria agreed on by Cabinet.
Status Quo and Problem
3. Currently, operators are not required to register with MFish however they are required
to register as passenger vessels with Maritime New Zealand. This register is focussed
on safe ship management and does not require operators to identify if they are fishing
charters. Therefore information on the sector currently available to MFish is very
limited and derived from one-off surveys or studies.
4. Recent research has shown that the number of recreational charter vessels has
increased by a minimum of 200 vessels (or 55%) in the last decade. 44 This research
reinforced the view held by some stakeholders that there should be some management
focus on fishing from charter vessels as this may be causing localised depletion of fish
populations in some areas.
5. It is difficult to make management decisions to address these concerns with the
limited information available. Retaining the status quo would mean that MFish would
continue to have no means of knowing the size and distribution of the charter vessel
fleet. Consequently, MFish would continue to have limited ability to estimate the
impact fishing from charter vessels is having on fisheries resources.
Objectives
6. The proposal will contribute to the achievement of all three Fisheries outcomes:
sustainable utilisation of the resource; value of the resources is maximised; and
credible fisheries management. The key management objectives of the proposal are to
generate and monitor information on:
44
Anderson, J. 2006, Indicators of Recreational Fishing Activity in New Zealand 1990 -2006, Internal Report
Prepared for the Ministry of Fisheries. Wellington.
117
ƒ
The size and distribution of the marine recreational fishing charter fleet
ƒ
The amount of fishing effort being applied by the fleet, by location and main
target fish stocks
ƒ
The number of fish of selected stocks being caught by fishers on recreational
charter vessels
Preferred Option - Recreational fishing charter vessel registration and
reporting
7. This option proposes new regulations requiring recreational fishing charter vessel
operators to register their vessel(s), provide reports of their fishing activity, and would
include catch reporting for selected fish stocks.
8. This option would require charter vessel operators to do the following:
ƒ
Register - Those meeting the definition of a charter vessel operator would be
required to register their vessel(s) annually with MFish, providing details of their
vessel and business. A fee of $150 per annum to assist with the administrative
costs of the reporting scheme is proposed.
ƒ
Activity reporting – Activity would be reported by location (latitude and longitude
data), and include the number of fishers, time fished, and main species caught.
Information should be recorded at the fishing location in a log-book provided by
MFish.
ƒ
Catch Reporting – Where catch includes fish of stocks nominated for catch
reporting, the number of fish of that stock caught at each location will be required
on the reporting form. Weights for large game-fish species could be required on a
case by case basis.
ƒ
Daily reporting forms would be returned to MFish monthly by the 15th of the
month following the date of fishing. Nil returns will be required if no fishing takes
place in a given month.
9. This is the preferred option because it would provide information on the number of
charter vessels, their location, activity and catch to inform management decision
making and assist with stock assessment. This information is currently unavailable.
10. This option will incur significant costs to MFish and some costs to charter vessel
operators. The estimated costs to MFish of this proposal are shown on Table 1:
Table 1 - Estimated costs to MFish of preferred option ($ ‘000)
MFish Costs
2009/10
2010/11
Subsequent
years
Capital
cost
(Initial cost of
establishment)
$140 – 280
Operating Cost
$176 – 263
$176 – 228
$161 – 213
Income
from
registration
$24 – 30
$72 – 90
$72 – 90
118
Net operating
costs
$152 – 233
$104 – 138
$91 – 121
Figures are in New Zealand dollars and exclude GST. These figures are sourced from current costs of equivalent
services required in the management of commercial fisheries.
11. Funding for this initiative has not yet been identified. MFish proposes to allow a
phased introduction of these requirements to align with funding decisions.
12. MFish would face costs educating charter vessel operators of the new requirements;
these costs have been included in the estimates above. Compliance costs are
incorporated into figures shown in Table 1 above.
13. Charter operators would be required to pay an annual fee of $150 upon registration to
assist with the administrative costs of registration and reporting. Charter operators
would also have to spend time familiarising themselves with the new regulations and
reporting systems and processes.
14. A key risk to this proposal is non-compliance of charter vessel operators. MFish will
inform charter vessel operators on what will be required from them and the
management benefits of the proposal to mitigate this risk.
15. The development and implementation of the proposed regulations will be consistent
with the Fisheries Act 1996 and the Amateur Fishing Regulations. It is not anticipated
that this proposal will have any negative effects or render redundant any other Acts or
regulations.
Implementation and Review
16. MFish expect that these regulations will be in place by June 2009. The earliest the
registration and reporting requirement will be applied is April 2010.
17. MFish will monitor compliance with registration and reporting requirements through
a programme of inspections and checking that all registered operators report each
month. It would be an offence to operate without being registered by MFish, to report
wrongful information or to fail to report on a monthly basis. Penalties will apply for
these offences. MFish believes the potential benefits to management that stem from
requiring charter vessel operators to register their vessels and report information
justify these penalties for infringement.
18. Charter vessel operators would need to familiarise themselves with the reporting
processes needed to fulfil the requirements. MFish will inform charter vessel
operators on how to fulfil the requirements to ensure that this occurs.
Consultation
19. The IPP was consulted on from 1 September 2008 for six weeks. Stakeholders’ views
will be incorporated as appropriate in the final advice to the Minister in December
2008. The IPP was informed by the views of charter vessel operators gathered during
a series of pre-consultation meetings around the country during February and March
2008.
119