Schedule 6 NEW Species – Otago COCKLES (COC 3) AND SURF CLAMS

Executive Summary

273. The proposals put forward are intended to improve the value obtained from the surf clam (a fishery complex of seven species being Bassina yatei, Dosina anus, Dosinia subrosea, Mactra discors, Mactra murchisoni, Paphies donacina and Spisula aequilatera) and the Otago cockle (COC 3) fisheries. The MFish initial position is to support the proposals that these fisheries are put on the Sixth Schedule of the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act).
     
274. Inclusion on the Sixth Schedule enables QMS species to be legally returned to the sea subject to certain conditions, principally, that they are likely to survive on return to the sea.
     
275. When surf clams were put into the QMS in 2004, these shellfish were not put on the Sixth Schedule. This was because of concern the style of dredge used damaged a significant percentage of shellfish and, therefore, reduced the survival rate of surf clams if they were to be returned to the sea. However, because of the obvious benefits of being able to return unwanted clams to the sea, the door was left open to reconsider addition to the Sixth Schedule should developments in harvesting technology improve the survival of clams so returned.
     
276. Improved harvesting technology for surf clams has been developed and industry has requested that surf clams be put on the Sixth Schedule. Evaluation of the survival rate of surf clams harvested using the new technology indicates significant improvement in survival.
     
277. Therefore, MFish supports putting surf clams on the Sixth Schedule of the Act, contingent upon sufficient use of the new harvesting technology by harvesters. If surf clams are put on the Sixth Schedule, MFish will take an interest in the level of use of the new harvesting technology.
     
278. In the case of COC 3, the main commercial cockle stocks (COC 1A, COC 3, COC 7A and 7B) were put forward for entry to the QMS in 2002, which included being put on the Sixth Schedule if successfully introduced. Subsequently, litigation within the commercial sector saw COC 3 withdrawn from the process while COC 1A and COC 7A and COC 7B proceeded. Later, when COC 3 did enter the QMS, the different process did not consider addition to the Sixth Schedule.
     
279. In 2005, all other cockle stocks, except FMA 10 (Kermadec), were put into the QMS and then onto the Sixth Schedule in January 2006.
     
280. Therefore, for consistency and equity, and to improve the value that could be obtained from the fishery by eliminating waste as well as improving the potential return on ACE, MFish supports putting COC 3 on the Sixth Schedule of the Act.

Summary of Options

281. Options for the proposals to put COC 3 and surf clams on the Sixth Schedule:

Cockles (COC 3)

1. Status Quo – COC 3 is not put on Sixth Schedule and once these cockles are harvested they are not able to be legally returned to the seabed. All other cockle stocks remain on the Sixth Schedule and are able to be returned to the seabed as long as the cockles are likely to survive and this is undertaken as soon as practical.
2. COC 3 is added to Sixth Schedule, which provides for cockles to be returned to the sea if they are likely to survive and are returned to the seabed as soon as practical. This is consistent with all other cockle stocks.
   
   Surf clams (BYA, DAN, DSU, MDI, MMI, PDO, SAE)
   
3. Status quo – surf clam stocks are not put on the Sixth Schedule and once harvested are not able to be legally returned to the sea.
4. All surf clam stocks are added to the Sixth Schedule provided surf clams returned to the sea are likely to survive and are returned to the seabed as soon as practical.

Non-regulatory options

282. Non-regulatory options are not considered as there is no legal mechanism to allow the return of QMS species to the sea other than inclusion on the Sixth Schedule.

Rationale for Management Options

COC 3

283. Fishers want greater flexibility in the operational management of the COC 3 stock managed under the QMS. They believe that by being able to return unwanted components of their catch to the sea they will be able to reduce their costs while making better use of the fishery resource. Currently, cockles may be returned to all New Zealand fisheries waters except the Otago cockle fishery (COC3) and fisheries management area 10 (Kermadec).
     
284. Commercial fishers do not want to land and count catch of unwanted cockles against ACE when these cockles could be returned to the seabed unharmed rather than wasted. There is an opportunity to improve the economic return to the fisher from ACE. Consequently, fishers want COC 3 listed, with appropriate requirements, on the Sixth Schedule of the Act to allow these QMS stocks to be returned to the sea and not count against ACE.
     
285. Cockle 3 is the only commercial QMS cockle stock that is not listed on the Sixth Schedule. The established commercial cockle stocks, except COC 3, were introduced into the QMS in 2002. COC 3 was excluded from introduction at that time as it was subject to Court action. The Court later ruled that COC 3 should be introduced into the QMS. MFish facilitated the introduction of COC 3 into the QMS, however, at this time, did not consider putting the stock on the Sixth Schedule. Subsequently, COC 1B, 1C, 2, 3B 4, 5, 7C, 8 and 9 entered the QMS 1 October 2005 and these were put on the sixth Schedule from 5 January 2006. Therefore, all cockle stocks are on the Sixth Schedule, except COC 3. This oversight should be corrected and consistency established across commercial cockle stocks.

Surf clams

286. The surf clam fishery is a complex of shellfish species being Bassina yatei, Dosinia anus, Dosinia subrosea, Mactra discors, Mactra murchisoni, Paphies donacina and Spisula aequilatera.
     
287. Commercial surf clam fishers see significant advantages to being able to legally return a non-saleable component of their catch back to the seabed.
     
288. Non-saleable clams include those that are outside market size or current market species requirements. Without the option of being returned to the seabed, this catch is wasted while still needing to be counted against ACE.
     
289. When surf clams were introduced to the QMS in 2004, they were not included on the Sixth Schedule because of concern that the style of dredge being used could damage the clams and, therefore, reduce the potential to survive if returned to the seabed. Fishers were advised that the issue could be revisited if a method of harvesting could be developed that overcame this problem of damaged shellfish.
     
290. Through research, fishers have developed a dredge style and technique that significantly reduces damage to clams during the catching process.

Assessment of Management Options

Status quo

291. For both of these proposals, the default is the status quo. Assuming the value of the proposals is established, the administrative costs of implementing any management change, as well as the availability and use of MFish resources, are the main considerations. The costs and resources associated with the implementation of the proposals are not large.
     
292. Under the status quo there is a lack of consistency between cockle fisheries which disadvantages the Otago cockle fishers. MFish is not aware of any information with which to justify this inconsistency.
     
293. ACE holders in both the Otago cockle and the surf clam fisheries would also be denied the opportunity to improve the commercial return from that ACE which could be achieved at no cost to the fishery, thus improving the value of the fishery.

COC 3

294. Cockles are robust shellfish adapted to inter-tidal exposure and are, therefore, likely to survive if they are harvested but then returned to their inter-tidal environment.
     
295. Being able to return unwanted cockles to their environment has distinct and important advantages for improving the value of the fishery.
     
296. Market sizes for cockles are quite exacting and those outside the ranges are very difficult to sell. As these cockles survive being returned to the seabed, it would be both wasteful and uneconomic not to do so as they may be harvested again having grown to suit the markets prescriptions, or be available for harvest by customary and recreational fishers.
     
297. MFish is confident that cockles are sufficiently robust to withstand being harvested and later returned to their environment. If returned to the seabed, they would almost certainly survive to grow, spawn and be available to future harvest including by recreational and customary fishers.
     
298. From the commercial fishers perspective, being able to return unwanted shellfish also allows a better use of ACE and improved value from the resource.
     
299. MFish recognises that there is an issue of equity across cockle stocks and acknowledges that, had COC 3 not been delayed within the Court, but proceeded along with the other stocks to be added to the QMS, it would be on the Sixth Schedule.
     
300. Given that COC 3 is the only commercial cockle stock not on the Sixth Schedule, then questions also arise of across-fishery equity. MFish is not aware of any grounds for continuing this inequality between cockle fisheries.
     
301. On both the grounds of improved value from the fishery and consistency across QMS cockle stocks, MFish supports putting COC 3 on the Sixth Schedule of the Act.

Surf clams

302. MFish noted in the IPP on the introduction of surf clams into the QMS that species currently listed on the Sixth Schedule are species that are expected to be able to survive upon return to sea following capture. MFish considered there was uncertainty and inadequate information to determine if this is the case for surf clams. Surf clam dredges trialled in the past not only damaged the foot of many clams but also frequently damaged the shell and also filled the mantle cavity with sand. Surf clams caught by this method generally suffered high mortality when held in tanks. Furthermore, this damage is not immediately obvious when sorting catch.
     
303. The high post-harvest mortality was attributed to the pressure of the water used to reveal the surf clams for collection by the dredge. Observed post-harvest mortality at this time was at least 40 – 60%, a level considered unacceptable for inclusion on the Sixth Schedule.
     
304. Harvesters submit that through their research they have developed improved harvesting technology where post-harvest mortality is now less than 5%. The non-invasive hydraulic clam rake allows gentle liquefaction of the substrate, and winnows the macrofauna of the habitat directly into the open meshed cage of the gear. This hydraulic clam rake does not damage surf clams and, as well, minimises damage to the few species of other macrofauna captured.
     
305. Harvesters submit that surf clams harvested using this technology have very little foot, shell, or mantle damage, and minimal quantities of sand within the shell cavity. They can be stored for weeks in tanks or running seawater and can be shipped alive to distant markets allowing the full export potential of the fishery to be realised.
     
306. The lack of damage and healthy state of surf clams of all sizes harvested by this hydraulic clam rake will result in returned clams being able to rebury and survive on being returned to the seafloor.
     
307. MFish accepts that undamaged surf clams are likely to survive if returned to the seabed. However, the key to realising the advantages of surf clams being put on the Sixth Schedule will be the level of uptake of the improved harvesting technology across all surf clam fisheries. MFish will maintain an interest in the level of use as an indicator of compliance with the Sixth Schedule criteria as proposed in paragraph 9.
     
308. Therefore, MFish supports, in principle, consideration of putting surf clams on the Sixth Schedule. MFish appreciates that, economically, the industry is sensitive to the post-harvest survival of surf clams and that use of this type of technology is a logical development across the fishery. However, MFish has limited information about the actual level of up-take of this type of improved harvesting technology across all surf clam QMAs and seeks submissions on the level of use and future up-take of the new dredge technology by fishers across the fishery, nationally.

Statutory Considerations

309. Section 10: The proposals were developed using the best available information. This included information from industry applicants Kai Moana (Pacific) Ltd and Dr H. J. Cranfield, a fisheries consultant, about current and historic post-harvest mortality rates. MFish has no reason to doubt the accuracy of these data. Other information was obtained from the following publications;
     
     Cranfield,H.J.; Michael,K.P. 1995 A Laboratory Study of the behaviour of surf clams (Paphies donacina, Spisula aequilatera, Mactra murchisoni) Client Report for Kai Moana (Pacific) LTD, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Greta Point, Wellington 30p.
     
     Michael, K.P.; Olsen, G.P.; Hvid, B.T.; Cranfield, H.J. 1990 Design and performance of two hydraulic subtidal clam dredges in New Zealand, New Zealand Fisheries Technical Report No. 21.
     
310. Section 11(2A)(b): There are no approved Fisheries Plans for any surf clam stock or for COC 3, however, a draft plan has been compiled for COC 3. The provision contemplated in this paper is consistent with this draft plan.
     
311. The Act defines a sustainability measure as “…any measure set or varied under Part III of this Act for the purpose of ensuring sustainability.”. Addition to the Sixth Schedule is enabled by s 72 (7) of the Act. As such, the statutory considerations under Part III of the Act are not relevant in this case. It should be noted, however, that this does not absolve ensuring sustainability as set out in the purpose of the Act.
     
312. Generic statutory considerations can be found at the beginning of this document.
     
313. Other statutory considerations are set out in the appendix.

Initial Position

Otago cockles (COC 3)

314. MFish initial position is that under s 72 paragraph 7 of the Fisheries Act 1996, the Sixth Schedule be amended so Otago cockles (COC 3) can be returned to the seabed after capture, contingent upon the existing criteria, currently contained on the Sixth Schedule, for the return of commercially harvested cockles to the sea.

Surf clams

315. MFish initial position is that under s 72 paragraph 7 of the Fisheries Act 1996, the surf clam stocks of Bassina yatei, Dosinia anus, Dosinia subrosea, Mactra murchisoni, Mactra discors, Spisula aequilatera, and Paphies donacina be added to the Sixth Schedule of the Fisheries Act 1996.
     
316. The wording of the requirements of the Sixth Schedule for surf clams be;
     
     A commercial fisher may return any surf clam to the seabed from which it was taken if-]
     1. that surf clam is likely to survive on return; and
     2. that return takes place as soon as practical after the surf clam is taken.
        
        40   MFish seeks submission from harvesters as to the level of use and future up-take of harvesting technology that reduces the post-harvest mortality of surf clams.