appendix 3: Statutory considerations

67. In forming the proposal to extend the maximum size limit for commercial fishing to all New Zealand fisheries waters, the following statutory considerations under the Fisheries Act 1996 have been taken into account.
    
68. Section 5(a) – There are no international obligations in place for eels. MFish notes that the shortfin eel fishery is shared with Australia and the Pacific Islands. Longfin eel is endemic to New Zealand.
    
69. Section 5(b) – MFish considers that the proposal for a maximum size limit for commercial eel fishing is consistent with the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. MFish notes its on-going obligation to ensure that customary Mäori interests are provided for in any subsequent review of management settings.
    
70. Section 8 – In addition to other management measures, like catchment closures and catch limits, setting a maximum size limit should help to improve the population structure and abundance of eels (mainly longfin eels) over the medium term. A maximum size limit for commercial fishing should contribute to ensuring that the fishery is sustainable and the relationship with interdependent stocks is also improved.
    
71. On balance, a maximum size limit for all New Zealand eel stocks is likely to better enable people to provide for their social, cultural and economic aspirations, although the benefits to some stocks may take time to materialise given the longevity of eels in general. Enabling people to provide for their social and cultural aspirations are of particular importance for this fishery. The eel fishery is one of the most important fisheries for Mäori on a cultural basis, as it forms a key element of their customs, and is considered a taonga or treasure. This value extends to social considerations, as the species is taken on a non-commercial basis as a source of food. Eel fishing is also a leisure activity enjoyed by outdoor enthusiasts. Setting a commercial fishing maximum size limit for eels nationally will also serve to provide a greater degree of certainty for commercial fishers, in terms of long term yield.
    
72. In 2004, the North Island eel fishery was introduced into the Quota Management System (QMS). The eel fishery in the North Island is a moderately small sized commercial fishery that provides direct employment for approximately forty commercial fishers. The Chatham Islands eel fishery is relatively small and provides direct employment for approximately one commercial fisher.
    
73. Section 9(a) and (b) – Putting in place a maximum size limit may increase the proportion of large eels in the overall population. This may have impacts on predator-prey relationships as large eels typically feed on fish rather than a variety of insects and snails. In a natural state eel populations would typically have a wider range of sizes than presently found. Accordingly, setting a maximum size limit for commercial fishing is unlikely to give rise to any major concerns for associated and dependent species, and biological diversity. Further, information on these relationships could be acquired over time to assist with the assessment of these environmental considerations.
    
74. Section 9(c) – The setting of a national maximum size limit for commercial fishing is not likely to have implications for habitats of particular significance for fisheries management.
    
75. Section 10 – MFish considers that further information would strengthen this proposal. However, such information is not readily available, and postponing management action is not warranted. In terms of sustainability outcomes, adoption of this measure at this time would be acting in a more cautious manner than continuing without a maximum size for commercial fishing in the North and Chatham Islands.
    
76. Research findings, although not necessarily conclusive in all cases, or representative of all areas, are suggesting that trends in recruitment, population size structure, sex ratios, and spawning escapement are of concern and/or warrant particular consideration in forming recommendations for the future management of the fishery. This is particularly so for longfin stocks.
    
77. While actions have been taken to halt or reverse these trends in recent years, consideration of the maximum size limit was not advanced in 2004 when previously proposed. MFish considers that the best available information indicates that the benefits of the current proposal outweigh the costs, particularly over the medium term as other management measures are refined.
    
78. Section 11(1)(a) – The effects of fishing on any North Island or Chatham Islands stock and the aquatic environment are not significant. The quantity of greater than 4 kg eels landed to licensed fish receivers within these areas is relatively small.
    
79. Section 11(1)(b) – Freshwater eels are managed under the QMS for the purposes of ensuring sustainability. The extension of the maximum size limit for commercial fishing to the North Island and Chatham Islands will not conflict with existing measures in place for the management of eels. The proposal aims to compliment the existing measures, particularly as a maximum size limit is already in place in the South Island.
    
80. Section 11(1)(c) – Eel fisheries are typically not subject to significant natural variability in their biomass to the extent that stocks become susceptible to over fishing on this basis alone. This is the case for all North Island and Chatham Islands eel stocks. Eels are relatively long-lived and have relatively slow growth rates. Adoption of the maximum size limit for commercial fishing will provide a level of protection to large eels who may otherwise continue to be vulnerable to commercial fishing before they can escape to spawn.
    
81. Section 11(2)(a) and (b) – There are no specific provisions applicable to the coastal marine area known to exist 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 proposal to extend the maximum size limit for commercial fishing nationwide.
    
82. Section 11 (2)(c) – The Hauraki Gulf is defined in the Fisheries Act 1996 to include all coastal waters and offshore islands from near Te Arai Point (south of Mangawhai) offshore to the Moko Hinau Islands, and south to Homunga Point (north of Waihi Beach). Protecting and maintaining the natural resources of the Hauraki Gulf as a matter of national importance. The setting of maximum size limits for commercial fishing across the biological stock for eels, which includes the Hauraki Gulf, will further the objectives set out in s 7 and s 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 Act, and ensure that the range of values associated with the use of the eel resource are enhanced for the people and communities in the area.
    
83. Section 11(2A) – The proposal to extend the maximum size limit for commercial fishing nationwide is not considered to warrant an immediate need to generate additional fisheries or conservation services. The medium term research plan for the national eel fishery outlines research directions already adopted by MFish.
    
84. No fisheries plans under s11A of the Fisheries Act 1996 exist for any eel stocks. However, some fishery interests throughout the country have shown some desire to identify and implement management objective consistent with strategy to improve spawning escapement.
    
85. Section 12(2)(c) – MFish has provided this Initial Position Paper (IPP) for the purposes of consulting with those who have an interest in the management of eels. MFish is required to provide for input and participation of hapu/iwi with a customary interest in fisheries when sustainability measures (such as a maximum size limit) are being considered. MFish is also required to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga when making decisions regarding the sustainability of fisheries. Individual iwi settlements also contain specific protocols about eels that MFish needs to consider.