ORANGE ROUGHY (ORH 3B)

Figure 1. Orange Roughy 3B (ORH 3B) Quota Management Area, and designated sub-areas

Executive Summary

1. The Ministry of Fisheries (MFish) recommends a decrease in the total allowable catch (TAC) for orange roughy in ORH 3B to address sustainability concerns for particular sub-areas, and to account for anticipated restrictions on bottom trawling in parts of the quota management area. The proposed TAC is subject to a designated sub-area catch limit agreement (the Agreement) between the Deepwater Stakeholders Group Ltd (DSG) and the Minister of Fisheries.
   
2. MFish has worked collaboratively with DSG to identify an ORH 3B fishery management proposal for the 2006-07 season that recognises both statutory measures drawn from the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act), and voluntary catch limit allowances for sub-areas within ORH 3B to be governed by DSG and audited by MFish.
   

Key Issues to Be Considered

3. The key fishery management matt ers to be considered for the orange roughy stocks and sub-areas within ORH 3B include the following:
   
   1. Management of the ORH 3B fishery is complicated by the biological nature of orange roughy stocks. The ORH 3B quota management area (QMA) covers a large geographical area. Over time, research and fishing effort has identified numerous areas within ORH 3B with localised orange roughy populations. In order to provide for greater utilisation and sustainability of orange roughy across the entire QMA, provisions have been made to ensure that catch is spread across these sub-areas, and not all catch is taken from just one or two features. Management of the ORH 3B fishery has evolved under an industry-led fine-scale ‘paddock management’ arrangement with voluntary agreement by commercial fishers to spread catch across designated sub-areas. The Minister of Fisheries sets the overall ORH 3B TAC with regard for the sub-area catch arrangements agreed to under the voluntary catch arrangements.
   2. The Deepwater Stakeholders Group Ltd (DSG) represents consolidated quota holders’ interests for multiple deepwater fisheries including orange roughy, and is referenced as ‘the Industry’ for the purposes of this consultation paper.
   3. MFish proposes to reduce the overall TAC and total allowable commercial catch (TACC) for ORH 3B with the understanding that the Industry will reduce the voluntary catch limits for the sub-stocks in Northwest Chatham Rise (Northwest Rise), and sub-stocks within the East Chatham Rise (East Rise). In addition, the industry will withdraw fishing effort from the Arrow Plateau on the expectation that bottom trawling in this sub area will be restricted under the proposed Benthic Protected Area (BPA) accord.
   4. New stock assessment information completed in 2006 raises sustainability concerns for the Northwest Rise and sub-stocks within the East Rise fisheries. The Northwest Rise assessment indicates the sub-stock is below the level that can support the maximum sustainable yield (B MSY). The 2006 stock assessments for sub-areas of the East Rise known as the Northeast Flats and Andes Hills indicate the biomass of sub-stocks within ORH 3B has been declining and these sub-stocks are subject to overfishing at current levels of harvest.
   5. The Industry proposes, as part of this consultation, to get the Minister’s agreement to distribute sub area catch allowance within ORH 3B from the Arrow plateau to the Sub-Antarctic. In order for this to happen, a research programme needs to be developed to address sustainability and utilisation issues in the Sub-Antarctic area.
   6. MFish’s approach to orange roughy stock management on the Chatham Rise is presently based on a current annual yield (CAY) harvest strategy using the biological reference point of 30% initial biomass (B 0) as the level of biomass that can produce B MSY. Stock assessments are conducted based on sub-areas that contain orange roughy populations in ORH 3B; as a result, the ORH 3B TAC is established as an aggregate of sustainable catch allowances built up from individual sub-areas.
   7. Management of the ORH 3B fishery has relied upon a combination of sub-area catch limit agreements, and the use of statutory sustainability measures and other management provisions of the Act. The sub-area catch limits have been managed voluntarily by industry via contracts with quota holders in the fishery. Catch limits are designed for sub-areas within ORH 3B as: Northwest Rise, East Rise, South Rise, Puysegur and exploratory regions covering the Arrow Plateau, and Sub-Antarctic. MFish proposes to continue to rely on Industry catch spreading agreements based on these sub area designations but seeks to codify the monitoring and auditing role MFish can take to ensure credible fisheries management.
   8. MFish proposes to take an active role in the monitoring and assessment of Industry catch limit arrangements within ORH 3B to ensure adherence to sub-area catch limits and other voluntary catch spreading arrangements such as feature limits as currently exist in the Industry governance structure.¹

Management Options

4. The latest stock assessments for the Northwest Rise and East Rise sub area fisheries indicate declining biomass levels for the Northwest Rise sub-stock and sub-areas within the East Rise. MFish proposes a reduction in orange roughy catch from the Northwest Rise to address sustainability concerns in that sub-area. For the East Rise, MFish proposes to retain the existing sub area catch limit, but seeks Industry’s agreement to shift this catch allowance among the sub-stocks to reduce catch from the Northeast Hills and Andes Hills areas.
   
5. Separately, the anticipated inclusion of the Arrow Plateau as a BPA will effectively eliminate orange roughy bottom trawl fishing opportunities in that sub-area of ORH 3B. By mutual agreement with industry, MFish proposes to remove all existing Arrow sub area catch allowances, recognising that no orange roughy catch is anticipated from BPAs.
   
6. In order to provide for ongoing exploratory fishing in other regions of ORH 3B across the remainder of the QMA designated as the Sub-Antarctic, MFish proposes a modest increase in the Sub-Antarctic sub area catch limit. This increase is predicated on the condition that industry agree to catch spreading arrangements to ensure that localised features within the Sub-Antarctic are not over fished.
   
7. The combined proposed catch level arrangements for the sub-areas would result in a net decrease in the ORH 3B TACC (from 12 700 tonnes to 11 500 tonnes). This reflects catch reductions applicable to the Northwest Rise, and withdrawal of the existing catch allowance made for the Arrow Plateau.
   
8. In the absence of fine scale catch allowances set for ORH 3B sub-areas, an alternative management option would be to set a TAC/TACC based on the most vulnerable orange roughy stock in the QMA. For reference, the ‘most vulnerable’ stock might be identified as the Northwest Rise fishery, resulting in an overall ORH 3B TAC of less than 1000 tonnes, compared to catches of around 12000 tonnes for the entire ORH 3B QMA in recent years achieved under the catch spreading agreements. Setting the ORH 3B TAC based on the most vulnerable stock is considered a suboptimal management approach in this fishery given the significant improvements in utilisation benefits available though sub area catch limits.
   
9. Over the longer term, subdivision of the existing ORH 3B QMA under s 25 of the Act may provide for statutory TAC limits by smaller areas to allow for greater utilisation, but such measures are not considered to be viable alternatives to address near term sustainability and utilisation issues. Other statutory measures under s 11 including regulation might also be employed by the Minister to establish catch areas or limits in the event voluntary catch limits prove ineffective.
   
10. The Minister’s statutory obligations warrant action to address sustainability concerns for the Northwest Rise orange roughy sub-stock and sub-areas in the East Rise. If the Minister were to maintain the status quo, there is a risk that the present orange roughy catch and effort on the Northwest Rise and sub-areas within the East Rise are unsustainable. In addition, the 2004 industry transfer of catch entitlement from the Northwest Rise to the East Rise may have shifted effort toward those sub-areas of the East Rise that are now at risk of overfishing.
    
11. The Minister of Fisheries has discretion in determining the way and rate in which to move a stock towards or above the B_MSY level.This allows for some degree of balancing between utilisation and sustainability considerations while meeting the obligations under s 13 to move a stock towards B_MSY.
    

Management proposal

12. MFish proposes to lower the ORH 3B TAC by 1 200 tonnes for the 2006 -07 fishing season in recognition of sustainability concerns for the Northwest Rise stock, as well as acknowledgement of Industry’s expected withdrawal from the Arrow fishery as a result of the BPA designation of that sub area.
    
13. This proposal is contingent on collaborative management actions with the Industry to ensure that catch limitation for ORH 3B sub-areas are agreed to and upheld. MFish officials have discussed management arrangements with Industry leaders regarding catch limits and governance arrangements within the designated sub-areas, and have identified a collaborative management proposal for purposes of consultation. The management proposal addresses the sustainability concerns arising from the most recent stock assessments but also provides the industry opportunities for utilization available through catch spreading measures.
    
14. The resulting ORH 3B TACC proposed by MFish contains the following provisions drawing upon the purpose of the Act, and the voluntary industry agreement to:
    
    1. Reduce the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for orange roughy in ORH 3B from 13335 tonnes to 12075 tonnes for the 2006–07 fishing year, and within the TAC:
       1. set an allowance of 575 tonnes for other sources of fishing related mortality;
       2. set zero allowances within the TAC for customary Maori and recreational fishery interests; and
       3. set the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) at 11500 tonnes;
    2. Set the following sub-area catch limits within the TACC:
       1. Northwest Rise to be reduced from 500 to 750 tonnes;
       2. East Rise to be maintained at 7250 tonnes; and within the East Rise to allow the industry to establish catch spreading in recognition of sustainability concerns for:
          • the “Spawning Box’ region at 4000 tonnes;
          • the Northeast Hills region at 200 tonnes;
          • the Andes Hills region at 700 tonnes;
          • with the remainder to be distributed about the Northeastern Flats region;
       3. South Rise to be maintained at 1400 tonnes;
       4. Arrow Plateau to be reduced from 1000 tonnes to 0 tonnes, acknowledging
          • the declining fishery interest in the Arrow Plateau (60 tonnes harvested in 2004-05); and
          • the Industry initiative to designate much of the Arrow sub area as a BPA with prohibitions on bottom trawling has been released for consultation with stakeholders;
       5. Sub-Antarctic to be increased from 1300 tonnes to 1850 tonnes including a specific feature limit for the Priceless region at 500 tonnes;
    3. Seek Industry support for implementation of the catch limits for ORH 3B by way of voluntary agreement; and
       1. acknowledge the objectives and operational implementation of the Deepwater Fisheries Management Agreement prior to the 1 October 2006 fishing year and each year thereafter;
       2. request that annual updates and specific annual agreements that pertain to the ORH 3B fishery be submitted to MFish;
       3. request that monthly monitoring reports pertaining to catch levels by ORH 3B sub area be submitted to MFish;
       4. request that MFish be notified when catch reaches 80% of the feature limits, and also be notified when any feature limit has been reached; request that the Industry work with MFish Science group to develop a stock assessment research programme for the Sub-Antarctic.
          
15. In the absence of voluntary catch limits within the ORH 3B sub-areas, the Minister may set sustainability measures under s 11 that maintain the sustainability of the stock in those areas. This may be done by closures, limits or other sustainability tools to constrain catch.
16. Stakeholders are encouraged to submit on the specific proposed sub-area catch limits, the aggregated TAC, and the collaborative management arrangements. A broader range of catch limit arrangements is conceivable within the limits of the ORH 3B stock assessment as presented in subsequent sections.
    

Additional measures

17. The Minister is given the flexibility to accept the options presented or to consider any range within these options. For example, the Minister can consider the approach that sets the TACC consistent with the most conservative biomass estimates for the sub-areas in ORH 3B. The Minister might also consider variations in the sub-area catch allowances as conditions supporting a given TAC/TACC.
    
18. Catch distribution in ORH 3B sub-areas, and further guidelines for take within the sub-areas, is a major fishery management challenge in this stock. MFish acknowledges efforts by the Deepwater Stakeholders Group to incorporate sub-area catch spreading measures into the industry-led fishery plan under development. MFish notes that it has liaised with industry representatives to identify sustainability measures and other management controls that appear consistent with MFish and DSG objectives for this fishery.
    
19. This management proposal should be considered in the context of MFish’s direction for fisheries management that supports the development of fisheries plans. The fisheries planning framework provides opportunities for the Industry to develop stakeholder led fisheries plans. The DSG is presently preparing a fisheries plan for orange roughy and oreo fisheries that identifies risks to the stocks and sets the management measures to deliver the desired objectives for the fishery.
    
20. This proposal should also acknowledge the MFish Statement of Intent that promotes credible fisheries management through improvements to compliance effectiveness, promotion of engagement with stakeholders and transparent reporting of catch.
    
21. MFish notes that future management of the ORH 3B fishery should evaluate if sub-area catch agreements are the best management framework to ensure sustainability of the stock. Such considerations should include a review of whether the sub units within ORH 3B constitute separate populations, and if so how best to ensure sustainability of those populations consistent with legislative obligations.
    

Rationale for Management Proposal

Changes in sub area catch limits and effort

22. MFish notes that although the ORH 3B TACC has not recently changed from 12700 tonnes (Figure 2), the sub-area catch limits have undergone changes in 2001 and again in 2004. A substantial portion of the 4000 tonnes catch allowance initially allocated to the Sub-Antarctic was transferred to the Chatham Rise fisheries in 2001 (Table 1). MFish consulted on the sub area limits in 2001 that decreased the Northwest Chatham Rise from 2 250 tonnes to 2000 tonnes, increased the East Chatham Rise to 7000 tonnes and created the South Chatham Rise at 1 400 tonnes. In 2004, the industry initiated independent changes in the distribution of the catch limits for the Northwest Rise (from 2000 to the present 1 500 tonnes) and the East Rise was increased from 7000 tonnes to the present 7250 tonnes. The 2004 redistribution of catch by Industry was not preceded by wider consultation or a review of sustainability measures or consideration by the Minister.

Table 2: Recent catch limits (tonnes) by designated sub area within ORH 3B.

23. Orange roughy catch within the Sub-Antarctic has increased in recent years reflecting specific targeted fisheries such as those around a feature known as “Priceless” in the Pukaki area, the “other Pukaki” fishery south and east of Price less, and those around the Bounty and Auckland Islands, Snares and Southland. The Priceless fishery(incorporating a 10 nautical mile radius about the underwater feature) has recorded catch of about 500 tonnes in each of the last four years (Table 2). Increased catch outside the Priceless feature boundaries indicate developing fishery interest along the 1000 metre contour of the northern Pukaki Rise as evidenced by the increased catch in 2004-05 and 2005-06 fishing seasons.

Table 2. Estimated ORH 3B catch for sub-areas outside the Chatham Rise, for targeted orange roughy catch.

Fishery assessment

24. New stock assessments for 2006 are available for two sub-areas within ORH 3B: the Northwest Chatham Rise and East Chatham Rise.The assessment indicates sustainability concerns for the Northwest Rise and sub-areas within the East Rise. A South Chatham Rise assessment was completed in 2004, indicating the fishery is between 29-41% B₀ which is above the B_MSY level of 30% B₀. Estimates of the Puysegur sub-area rely on a stock assessment completed in 1998. Although the Industry conducted an acoustic survey, a formal stock assessment was not undertaken. Stock assessment information for other sub-areas in ORH 3B such as the Auckland Islands and Antipodes were not completed because there is insufficient data to carry out standardised CPUE analyses.

Northwest Chatham Rise (Northwest Rise)

25. A new stock assessment was completed in 2006 suggesting sustainability concerns for the Northwest Rise fishery. The 2006 stock assessment for the Northwest Rise was completed using fishery independent (egg survey and acoustic survey) and fishery dependent data (catch per unit effort data). Three alternative model runs were completed: one in which CPUE and biomass survey data were incorporated; a second, in which the biomass survey data were omitted; and a third, in which the CPUE data were omitted.
    
26. When all data were included (Alldata run), the 2006 biomass was estimated to be below B_MSY at 11% (8-16%) virgin biomass (B 0) and recent exploitation rates were estimated to be about four times that under a CAY policy. Modelling projections based on deterministic recruitment indicated that the biomass is likely to increase slowly if catches remain at the current catch limit of 1500 t. However, with these catches the probability that the stock would rebuild to 30% B ₀, or even 20% B ₀, within five years is close to zero. This catch limit is more than three times the estimated CAY for 2007 (410 t) and about 50% higher than the long-term yield under a CAY policy (1040 t; MAY). When the survey biomass indices were excluded (Nobiomass run), the stock status (%B 0) and yield estimates were slightly lower than the estimates for the Alldata run. When the CPUE data were excluded (NoCPUE run), the stock status and yield estimates were considerably more optimistic than the other two runs. However, this run was not considered to give a reliable assessment of stock status.
    
27. The assessment is uncertain because the estimated current status of the stock is strongly dependent on the CPUE data for the flat areas and the extent to which these data index the entire stock is unknown. Survey biomass indices provided only limited information on stock status because there are so few of them and they are restricted to the end of the time series when there is relatively little contrast in biomass. There is also conflict amongst the survey estimates in that no model run provided satisfactory fits to all of them.
    

East Chatham Rise - spawning box and Northeast Flats, Northeast Hills, Andes

28. It was not possible to carry out an overall assessment for the whole East Chatham Rise sub area due to pronounced differences in CPUE trends for different sub-areas. New assessments were carried out in 2006 for three separate sub-areas: 1) the Andes, 2) the Northeast Hills, and 3) the Spawning Box and Northeast Flats.
    
29. Spawning Box and Northeast Flats – Three model runs are presented for the Spawning Box and Northeast Flats sub area assessment from software packages CASAL and Awatea. All three runs included wide-area acoustic and trawl survey biomass estimates as well as commercial fishery and research survey fish length data, but CPUE was omitted in one run, and another run halved natural mortality as a proxy for lower productivity.
    
30. Model assessment runs in 2006 indicate that the biomass declined to a low point of 25-44% B₀ in 1990-91 or 1991-92, but the biomass has subsequently increased. What is very uncertain is the extent of the increase, which appears to be driven by model assumptions about productivity, rather than recent data from the fishery.
    
31. If the usual productivity assumptions are correct, then the increase has been substantial, the current biomass is high (between 51% and 61% B0), and yield estimates (CAY and MAY) are higher than the 2004–05 catch of 5 490 t (Table 3). Five-year projections suggest that continued fishing at this level will allow a small further increase. Recent exploitation rates are estimated to be less than that associated with a CAY policy, ECAY (0.064 for Chatham Rise orange roughy).
    
32. If the actual productivity of orange roughy in this sub-area is lower than is usually assumed, the increase in biomass will be less and the estimated yields will be lower. For example, if lower productivity is represented by halving M, the current biomass is estimated to be 33-37% B0, yield estimates (CAY and MAY) are less than the 2004-05 catch of 5 490 t, and five-year projections indicate that continued fishing at this level is likely to cause a slight fall in biomass (but with a greater than 50% chance that the biomass will still be above 30% B₀ in 2011). Recent exploitation rates are estimated to have exceeded ECAY.
    
33. Northeast Hills -The assessment of the Northeast Hills indicates that the biomass has been fished down to a level of about 14% B₀ (range 7–32%), but has increased slightly in the last two years in response to reductions in catches. Five-year projections indicate that biomass is likely to increase further if the catch remains at its 2004–05 level of 540 t. However, the current exploitation rate is about three times ECAY, and yield estimates (CAY and MAY) are both lower than the 2004–05 catch.
    
34. Andes - The assessment of the Andes indicates that the biomass has been fished down and is currently estimated to be about 29% B0 (range 14–74%). Five-year projections indicate that the biomass is likely to decrease further if the catch remains at its 2004 -05 level of 1 410 t, and to remain stable up to catch levels between 800 and 1000 t. The current exploitation rate is about double ECAY and yield estimates (both CAY and MAY) are both about half the 2004–05 catch.
    

Table 3: Catches by sub area in the East Chatham Rise rounded to the nearest 10 t.

35. Further detail relating to the 2006 ORH 3B stock assessment is presented in Appendix 1.
    

Assessment of Management Proposal

Section 13 considerations

36. The ORH 3B stocks are managed under s 13 of the Act, which prescribes that the Minister shall set the TAC to maintain at or above, or move the stock biomass toward or above, the biomass level that would support the maximum sustainable yield (B_MSY). In considering the way and rate the biomass of a stock is moved towards or above a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), s 13(3) of the Act requires the Minister to have regard to such social, cultural, and economic factors as he considers relevant. MFish interprets that to provide the Minister with discretion when making decisions about the rate to move the stock biomass towards the target level, and allows for some degree of balancing of utilisation and sustainability considerations.
    
37. Although the Minister has discretion as to the way and rate that the stock may move towards B_MSY, the alternatives modelled in the assessments do not address all of the alternative catch spreading arrangements for stocks in designated sub-areas in ORH 3B. The level of the TAC must be set with regard to the interdependence of stocks and within a period appropriate to the biological characteristics of the stock and any environmental conditions. However, there is an absolute statutory obligation in s 13 to manage stocks toward B_MSY.
    
38. A CAY harvest strategy has been adopted for all Chatham Rise orange roughy fisheries in ORH 3B to enable the maximum sustainable yield to be taken over time. Under a CAY strategy the annual yield is estimated as a fixed proportion (harvest rate) of the current biomass. The harvest rate used is designed to maximise the average catch (MAY) over time within an acceptable level of risk. For Chatham Rise orange roughy, the exploitation rate under a CAY policy is 0.064 and the associated long-term average yield (MAY) is 1.99% B ₀. In the case of orange roughy, CAY is estimated using the method of Francis (1992) where the acceptable level of risk is taken to be the probability that future biomass would fall below 20% B₀ less than 10%of the time.
    
39. The 2006 Plenary reports that under a CAY harvest strategy, the average stock size for the Northwest Rise (B MAY) is estimated to be at 30% B₀. Sub-areas within the East Rise are assessed similar to a stock but MFish is currently unable to consider separate management levels under the Act for sub-areas within the East Rise. For management purposes, the East Rise is treated as a single sub-stock with particular interest in sub-areas within the East Rise.
    
40. To address concerns in the Northwest Chatham Rise, the proposed catch limit for 2006-07 is 750 tonnes; or half the present catch limit. This value acknowledges the risk of over harvest but considers the uncertainty in the stock assessment results.
    
41. MFish proposes no change to the catch limit for the East Rise designated sub-area with the understanding that the Industry would initiate specific measures or limits for the Northeast Hills and Andes Hills areas within the East Rise. Specifically, the industry has considered the concerns raised by the latest stock assessments and indicated that quota holders will agree to restrict catch within the Northeast Hills and Andes sub-areas of the East Rise, consistent with the CAY policy median level of harvest.
    

Total allowable catch, total allowable commercial catch, and allowances

42. The management proposal reflects the sustainability concerns identified in the 2006 ORH 3B plenary assessment. The proposal also acknowledges industry’s ability to address specific concerns in the Northwest Chatham Rise and East Chatham Rise sub-areas of ORH 3B through voluntary catch spreading agreements. Table 4 specifies the current catch limits, the 2004-05 catch, and the proposed catch limits for consultation.
    

Table 4: Proposed TACC adjustments in the ORH 3B sub area catch limits

43. There are no known Maori customary or recreational fisheries for orange roughy and no catch entitlement is proposed for Maori customary or recreational interests. Other sources of orange roughy mortality include a 5% catch overrun to account for lost fish, discards, discrepancies in tray weights and conversion factors. The proposed TAC for ORH 3B is the sum of the TACC (11 500 tonnes) and the 5% allowance for other sources of mortality (575 tonnes), resulting in a TAC of 12 075 tonnes for the 2006-07 fishing year.
    

Other Management Controls

Implementation of catch limits

44. There are two mechanisms for implementing the proposed catch limits for orange roughy within ORH 3B (a) voluntary agreement and (b) by gazette notice or regulation. To date, the Industry has managed the sub-area catch limits by way of a Memorandum of Understanding (Deepwater Fisheries Management Agreement) between quota holders. Industry management has been successful to date and avoids the administrative cost associated with MFish assuming responsibility to monitor and enforce sub-area catch limits. This approach is also consistent with the Government’s concept for fisheries plans.
    
45. To provide for credible fishery management and a transparent collaborative management arrangement between MFish and industry, the following information is proposed as essential to support MFish’s role in auditing the voluntary catch split agreements:
    1. Annual Deepwater Fisheries Management Agreement Schedule;
    2. Monthly reports received from MFish data extraction and created by Industry regarding estimated catch and landings of orange roughy in ORH 3B;
    3. All correspondence relating to sub area closures as feature limits in the Sub-Antarctic region are approached;
    4. The voluntary reporting framework and other initiatives set out by the Industry assist in ensuring the robustness of the catch limits.
       
46. Indications of sub-area over-catch would be forthcoming from monthly catch reports, and Industry will be held accountable for any failure of governance. MFish proposes that a clause in its audit process, that will allow an over-catch of 10% for each sub-area, to be adopted under the management proposal. This is proposed to indicate that Industry governance arrangements may need to be improved.
    
47. MFish proposes that the Minister seek agreement from industry to continue to implement the proposed catch limits within ORH 3B by way of voluntary agreement. If this agreement is not forthcoming and the monthly reports and correspondence regarding feature limits are not submitted, then MFish notes that the Minister could implement the proposed measures by Gazette notice or regulation.
    

Exploratory fishing areas

48. The Sub-Antarctic exploratory region is not managed with a CAY policy, and has available only limited assessment information as the basis for determining whether current or proposed catch limits are sustainable. The Sub-Antarctic area catch limit was originally intended as an incentive for Industry to commence exploratory fishing in an effort to discover new fisheries and shift effort away from the Chatham Rise fishery. The Industry has designated additional protective measures in the Sub-Antarctic for the development of fisheries about single topographic features by limiting features to a 500 ton maximum. Industry monitoring provides orange roughy harvesters’ timely information regarding these “feature limits” and closes the features when the fishery approaches the 500 tonne limit. Catch limits for the Sub-Antarctic presently allow for 1 300 tonnes of orange roughy and the 2004 -05 catch for this region has exceeded that limit at nearly 2000 tonnes.
    
49. The management proposal suggests shifting 550 tonnes of the catch entitlement from the Arrow Plateau Exploratory fishing area (that is proposed as a BPA) to the Sub-Antarctic exploratory fishing area. This catch entitlement is considered with the expectation that a research programme will be developed for the Sub-Antarctic; in particular, the fisheries around Price less, Pukaki, Bounty, Antipodes and Auckland Islands. The additional catch would provide the industry with utilisation opportunities to spread fishery effort about ORH 3B and to prevent overfishing of specific sub-areas.
    
50. The industry has requested that the entire 1000 tonnes from the Arrow Plateau be transferred to the Sub-Antarctic, but there is no evidence that an increased catch in the Sub-Antarctic is sustainable. Redistributing the 1000 tonnes from the Arrow Plateau to the Sub-Antarctic would increase the Sub-Antarctic catch limit to 2 300 tonnes. It is unknown if the present catch limit in the Sub-Antarctic is sustainable, and any increase to the catch could place additional pressure on specific sub-areas.
    
51. The practice of shifting catch allowances has benefits and risks. Spreading catch effort about ORH 3B has allowed the industry to target large aggregations while allowing areas with low catch rates to “rest” from fishing pressure. The risk in this approach has been that there is little baseline information regarding whether there is a single stock or a series of stocks that are susceptible to serial depletion in the Sub-Antarctic. Historically, the catch limit in the Sub-Antarctic has been much higher. The Sub-Antarctic exploratory catch limit from 1991-92 through 2001 was 4000 tonnes. At that time, the industry requested a shift from the exploratory area to the Chatham Rise to account for fishery interests in the Chatham Rise.
    

Compliance implications

52. Key offences likely to occur in ORH 3B include mis-reporting of area, species and weights, fishing in closed areas and bycatch targeting. TACC cuts in oreo and other orange roughy areas may increase the likelihood of area misreporting. However, the proposed management changes may not increase the incentive to offend. Area misreporting can be managed through vessel monitoring using vessel monitoring systems (VMS), patrols, observers, and at-sea and port inspection programmes. Real time information is an important tool particularly where there are sustainability risks. Providing catch effort data to MFish on a timely basis can assist in managing offences and could be incorporated into management plans.
    
53. MFish notes that the actual catch in ORH 3B sub-areas in recent years has exceeded the catch limits agreed to for the Northwest Chatham Rise, the South Rise and Sub-Antarctic (Table 5). To some extent, the over catch in the Northwest Rise can be attributed to industry adjustments to changes in the voluntary catch spreading arrangements in 2004 resulting in a 23% over catch in the 2004 -05 fishing year. Catch in the South Rise has exceeded the catch limit three times in the last six years reviewed but on average has remained at 99%. Increasing fishery interest in the Sub-Antarctic has resulted in recent over catch as high as 43% in the 2005-06 fishing year. New and developing fisheries within the Sub-Antarctic are most at risk of accelerated fish down from excessive fishing effort.

Table 5. Recent ORH 3B catches by area, to the nearest 100 tonnes, and by percentage catch with respect to sub-area catch limits in Table 1.

* South Rise designated sub-area was created in 2001

Statutory Considerations

54. In forming this management proposal, the following statutory considerations have been taken into account:
    1. Section 8 of the Act describes the purpose of the Act as being to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability, and defines the meanings of utilisation and sustainability. The management options presented seek to achieve the purpose of the Act. The proposal allows for variable levels of utilisation through the setting of catch limits and allowances. The proposal ensures sustainability under the respective catch limits via different fine-scale management and monitoring measures that address risk as appropriate to the different levels of catch, and take into account the respective costs of management versus the utilisation benefits.
    2. Section 13(2) requires that the Minister sets a TAC that maintains the stock at or above a biomass level that can produce the MSY (denoted as B MSY), or moves it towards or above such a level, having regard to the interdependence of stocks. An assessment of the current status of the entire ORH 3B stock or stock complex relative to B_MSY is not available. Rather, stock assessments for particular sub-stocks and sub-areas have been determined that give credence to the catch split arrangements for setting catch limits that would, on balance, satisfy the s 13(2) requirements. While it is not known if the entire ORH 3B stock complex remains above B_MSY , current scientific advice is that fishing at the present catch limits would pose a sustainability risk to some of the sub-stocks within ORH 3B.
    3. The proposed TAC proposal is also based on
       1. Section 13(2) considerations that, where a stock is below B_MSY (s 13(2)(b), the TAC be set to move the stock towards or above the B_MSY level within an appropriate period, having regard to the biological characteristics of the stock and any environmental conditions affecting the stock. Section 13(2)(c) requires similar action in the case of the stock being above the B MSY. It cannot be determined at this time whether or not the overall ORH 3B stock is above B MSY, and no specific environmental conditions affecting the ORH 3B stock have been identified.
       2. However, it is known that orange roughy are very long-lived and late maturing, which are biological characteristics that render them slow to recover from overfishing. There is no information to suggest the interdependence of stocks should affect the level of the TACs and sub-area catch limits set for ORH 3B at this time (as required to be considered under s 13(2)(c)). The fishery is relatively clean, and bycatch proportions are low given that the fishery primarily targets aggregations of orange roughy.
       3. Spawning occurs in dense aggregations at depths of 700–1000 m and is often associated with bottom features such as pinnacles and canyons. Orange roughy also form aggregations outside the spawning period, presumably for feeding, thus rendering orange roughy susceptible to overfishing and localised depletion.
    4. Section 13(3) requires the Minister to have regard to such social, cultural, and economic factors as he considers being relevant when determining the way and rate at which to move the stock biomass toward or above the B_MSY level. The current status of some sub-stocks within ORH 3B is understood to be overfished and require review and re-distribution of effort within ORH 3B. The voluntary industry agreement is intended to address the fine scale management necessary to allow for utilisation, while ensuring sustainability. The management proposal would enable greater utilisation benefits within the Sub-Antarctic area within ORH 3B, as well as providing opportunities for cost-effective monitoring and auditing. There will be socio-economic impacts under reduced catch levels, but such effects have not been quantified.
    5. Section 11(1)(c) requires the Minister to take into account the natural variability of the stock when setting or varying any sustainability measure. Orange roughy year-to-year biomass is not known to be highly variable.
    6. Sections 9(a) and (b) require the Minister to take into account that associated or dependent species (those that are not harvested) 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. The specific nature and extent of effects of fishing on any particular sub-stock in ORH 3B and the environment are generally understood to be localised and specific to aggregations of orange roughy at 850-1 200 metre depths. While some bycatch of non-harvested species is known, the impact that fishing for ORH 3B has on the long term viability and biological diversity of the aquatic environment is of greater concern in regions of steep sloping highly diverse topographic features. Some features within ORH 3B have been set aside from all trawling and the Industry has proposed additional bottom trawling closures that will protect 106 225 km 2 from the benthic effects of fishing. The main prey species for orange roughy include mesopelagic and benthopelagic prawns, fish and squid, with other organisms such as mysids, amphipods and euphausiids occasionally being important. Some concern has been raised regarding highly vulnerable deepwater sharks, but sharks account for less than 1% of the bycatch in orange roughy fisheries. A specific national plan of action for deepwater sharks is in preparation by MFish. MFish has considered the effects on associated and dependent species and biodiversity that would affect the setting of the TAC and determined the impact is addressed under the catch spreading arrangements.
    7. Section 9(c) requires that habitat of particular importance for fisheries management should be protected. Some habitats that are understood to be important including seamount areas within the ORH 3B area are protected from trawling.
    8. Sections 5(a) and (b) require the Act to be interpreted consistently with New Zealand’s international obligations with respect to fishing and with the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. Provisions of general international instruments such as the United Nation s Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Fish Stocks Agreement have been implemented through the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1996 and given effect to here. MFish considers that issues relating to international obligations and the Settlement Act are adequately addressed in the management options proposed.
    9. Section 11(1)(b) requires any existing controls under the Act to be taken into account. For ORH 3B, the measures that apply currently are a TAC, TACC and an allowance for incidental fishing-related mortality. No other controls under the Act apply specifically to ORH 3B. Specific seamount closures within ORH 3B are found in Appendix 2.
    10. Section 11(2A)(b) requires the Minister to take into account any relevant fisheries plan approved under the Act. A fisheries plan is being developed by the Industry for orange roughy in ORH 2A, ORH 2B, ORH 3A, ORH 3B, ORH 7A and ORH 7B and oreo fisheries. To date, that plan has not been submitted for consultation.
    11. Sections 11(2A)(a) and (c) require that before setting or varying any sustainability measure, the Minister must take into account any conservation or fisheries service, or any decision not to require such services. MFish does not consider that existing or proposed services materially affect the proposals for the ORH 3B stock. No decision has been made to require or not require a service in this fishery at this time.
    12. Sections 11(2)(a) and (b) require the Minister to have regard to any provisions in any policy statement or plan under the Resource Management Act 1991, or any management strategy or plan under the Conservation Act 1987, that are relevant to the setting of any sustainability measure for the ORH 3B stock. MFish is not aware of any such provisions that should be taken into account for ORH 3B.
    13. Section 11(2)(c) requires the Minister to have regard to ss 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. The distribution of orange roughy in the ORH 3B QMA does not intersect with the Park boundaries.
    14. Section 21 requires the Minister to allow for non-commercial Maori and recreational fishing interests, and other sources of fishing-related mortality when setting or varying the TACC. The nature of the ORH 3B fishery and the interests of recreational and customary fishers have been considered in proposing the TACCs. Section 21 also requires that any mätaitai reserve or closure/restriction under s 186A to facilitate customary fishing be taken into account. There are mätaitai reserves and s 186A measures in ORH 3B generally, but none intersect with the ORH 3B fishery. No area has been closed or fishing method restricted (that affects the fishery within ORH 3B) under the customary fishing provisions of the Act. Section 21 also requires that any regulations to prohibit fishing made under s 311 be taken into account when setting allowances for recreational interests. No restrictions under s 311 have been placed on fishing in any area within ORH 3B.
    15. Section 10 of the Act sets out the information principles, which require that decisions be based on the best available information, taking into account any uncertainty in that information, and applying caution when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate. In accordance with s 10, the absence of information should not be used as a reason to postpone, or fail to take, any measure to achieve the purpose of the Act, including providing for utilisation at levels considered to be sustainable. MFish considers that the information used to support the management proposal (the available catch data, the opinion of the DWSAWG, the 2006 Stock Assessment Plenary and MFish scientists, and the known biological characteristics of orange roughy) is the best available information on the status of the sub-stocks within ORH 3B. Given that the status of the entire ORH 3B stock complex relative to B_MSY is uncertain, the proposal balances the risks to utilisation and sustainability through fine scale catch limits and sub-areas. Although the management proposal has determined short-term sustainability, the long-term sustainability of the proposed catch levels is not known.