Regional Recreational Combined hauraki – Bay of Plenty / west coast combined Forum

Date: 27 November 2006

Venue: MFish Rosebank Road

Time: 3 – 8 pm

Present:

Non-Commercial:

• Stuart Cameron, Peter Stevenson, Peter Ellery, Anthony Olsen, Stuart Hogg, Kim Walshe, Alan Moore, John Forrest, John Friend, George Johnston, Trish Rea, Don Glass, Bill Marshall, Geoff Manks, Sheryl Hart.

MFish:

• Stacey Whitiora, Robin Connor (Policy Team), Richard Fanselow.

Apologies:

• Bernie Ward, Keith Snow, Richard Baker, John Taunton-Clark (MFish).

Main agenda item

The main agenda item involved Robin Connor from the MFish Policy team working through the Shared Fish document providing explanations of its ideas and proposals and Forum members seeking clarification and discussing possible implications. Main discussion points were:

Robin advised that the main aim of the project is to maximize the value that New Zealanders gain from shared fisheries. He emphasized that values are not just economic returns.

Stu Cameron asked why there should be changes when s 21 of the Fisheries Act gives preference to recreational and customary fishers. Robin explained that there is a Court finding that the Minister has discretion to “allow for” non-commercial fishers. This does not mean allowing for the total quantity that non-commercial fishers may catch in a year. Members pointed out that the Court had found that the Minister should consider population changes that could require increased allowances to cover increased take.

Trish pointed out that MFish only manages a few species above Bmsy – Robin advised that the stock status section on the MFish website provides information on where species are at in relation to Bmsy.

Robin asked whether members were happy with a 25 year rebuild process for SNA 8. Peter Ellery thought that setting TACs is mainly a scientific process – allocation is the focus for non-commercial fishers. Robin asked members to think about whether it is Ok for the Minister to have discretion about allocation decisions.

There was considerable discussion about the way the SNA 8 fishery has been managed. Robin suggested that the advice provide to the Minister in 1998 on TAC levels that would lead to rebuilding was wrong. Last year, to get the rebuild on target, the Minister took a least cost to the commercial sector option. He did not choose a shorter timeframe for rebuilding that would have recognized non-commercial values.

Members said that rebuilding in this fishery is being undermined by deeming by commercial fishers. Robin didn’t agree that this was occurring. Peter Ellery and Stuart Cameron questioned the accuracy of the information the Minster is using to make his decisions.

Trish asked how cultural and social values were taken into account in the SNA 8 decision, and how to ensure they are considered. Kim asked how a comparative value can be obtained that could allow comparison with commercial fishing values. Members wanted examples of how valuation techniques could be applied.

Robin pointed out that there is broad Ministerial discretion within the current framework for decision-making. There also seems to be considerable dissatisfaction with the current framework and the Shared Fish proposals may act to clarify the process by reducing discretion.

There was discussion about the way MFish is consulting on the Shared Fish Policy, with members concerned about poor attendance at public meetings, that more effort is needed to reach ethnic groups and that too many people are not aware of the document and its proposals. Robin described what was being done in terms of distribution of brochures, the MFish website and 0800 number.

Robin talked about the importance of getting better information on recreational catch and value. Under the Shared Fish proposal $1.5 -$2 million dollars would be available each year for 5 – 10 years to obtain such information. Charter boats would be required to report catch. Members emphasized the importance of ensuring that this information is actually used.

Baseline allocations (to fishing sectors) were discussed – the concept of resetting allocations following a negotiation process. Members supported negotiation, but not in its present form – they thought MFish should take more of a side role. There was speculation about how independent assessment could occur – a QC? Judges? Tribunal? Commission of inquiry?

There was a suggestion that a case study about the proposed redress for re-allocation or access would be helpful – perhaps using quota value to determine amount of redress. Stuart Cameron thought that recreational interests could be given deemed value costs to buy quota.

Trish Rae considered that s 21 gives non-commercial fishers priority in a value based approach when comparing feeding a family vs returns from commercial sale. There could be a possibility of recreational fishing in MPAs where potentially bigger fish could be taken.

George Johnson pointed to the example of Ngäti Awa where recreational fishers and iwi are working together to implement mahinga mätaitai that encompass all the aspects Trish mentioned. Stuart Cameron said that the Hokianga accord was doing similar things, with recreational fishers able to have input and the possibility that commercial fishers could be allowed back into areas once rebuilding has occurred.

In terms of allocation priorities, Robin said there is legislative support for Maori customary take to be uncapped, except for sustainability reasons. There was discussion about (customary) permits being issued when fish stocks are low – points to the need for MFish to improve kaitiaki training and provide them with information of the status of stocks. MFish may base new customary allocations on actual take. It was suggested that MFish records of customary take are inadequate and should not be used to determine customary allocations. MFish gave an assurance that customary take would remain uncapped.

Both the Option 4 website and new New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council website give details of how those organisations intend to provide responses to these proposals.

MFish update, members’ updates etc

The discussion about the Shared Fish proposals took up all of the meeting time, so the usual updates were not given. Two questions were asked before the meeting ended:

1. A request to extend the timeframe for responses to the draft Standards documents. Deadline for comment extended from end February to Friday 30 March
2. What is the function of this group and the Forums? Will it make the boat go faster?Proposed agenda item at the next meeting.