SHARED FISHERIES FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
This material will be updated, so please check back regularly.
See Also - Key Questions and Issues raised during Public Meetings
Values and Valuation
The Shared Fisheries proposals focus on the objective of increasing the value that is obtained from the use of shared fisheries. New Zealand is getting a great deal of value out of these fisheries at present, but there are areas where improvements are possible. Two parts of this challenge have been identified as:
- Non-commercial values need better recognition in the decision-making framework for managing shared fisheries; and
- The commercial fishing sector needs greater certainty in the allocation process to provide a more secure investment environment.
This section provides some answers to commonly asked questions about values and valuation in relation to the Shared Fisheries proposals.
If the idea of getting the most out of a limited resource for the country as a whole is so straight forward, is the current system just ignoring it?
The current commercial management system is built on this very principle. Transferable quota allows commercial fishers and fishing companies to decide what value they hold for the right to catch fish and the quota will tend to be held by those who value it the most. These values are mainly about the income that can be generated from fishing.
On the non-commercial side, Maori customary fishing values are provided for through the Customary Regulations and the frameworks for customary fishing areas – Mataitai and Taiapure. Customary catch is also allowed for in allocating the Total Allowable Catch (TAC).
Amateur (including recreational) fishing values are currently not very well provided for with such specific tools. The main way amateur values are currently taken into account is in decisions by the Minister of Fisheries in setting Total Allowable Commercial Catches (TACCs). In that process the Minister must allow for “recreational” interests.
So, currently, the balance of value in the fisheries allocated between amateur and commercial interests is decided by the Minister of Fisheries on a fishery by fishery basis. The Minister has quite a broad discretion, but considers a number of factors before making a decision.
Therefore, the idea of using value in allocation decisions is not new. What the Shared Fisheries Proposals do is to suggest some more ways that could help to increase value. These include new management tools for amateur fishing and the possible use of new measures of value so that the basis of allocation decisions can be more objective, consistent and transparent.
How would value be used in fisheries management decisions?
The way in which value can be used in fisheries management decision-making can vary according to the nature of the management issue.
The Shared Fisheries proposals suggest policies, such as managing a fish stock for a high abundance level (i.e. ‘above Bmsy’) or local area management to favour amateur fishing that would be guided by the principle of adding value to New Zealand. For the decision-maker the critical issue will be whether the management change is expected to generate a net benefit—for example, if a stock is managed at higher abundance levels, will gains associated with larger fish or higher catch rates exceed any losses associated with a lower total available catch?
Such decisions will involve judgement calls because information about fisheries, including information about values, is uncertain. But such judgements are regularly made in a wide range of policy and management decisions by government. Value assessments could estimate expected gains to amateur fishing, and the opportunity cost faced by the commercial sector can generally be estimated based on market prices.
The discussion document includes options for allocation of the TAC to be guided by value-based assessments. The particular circumstances are explained in the discussion document.
The value that is most useful to management and allocation of resources is ‘marginal value’ (in the fisheries management case, this is the value of the ‘next fish’). Marginal values depend on how much people already have. If someone has been out on the water for several hours without catching a fish, when he or she does catch one it may be worth a lot to them. However, for someone who has been out for the same amount of time and caught ten fish, catching one more may not seem as important.
Any adjustment to allocations between the commercial and amateur sectors based on marginal values would be made on the basis that the change increases the total value obtained from the fishery.
For a particular fish stock, if one sector has a higher marginal value for fish than the other, changing the existing allocation by ‘shifting’ some fish from the sector with the lower value to the sector with the higher value will increase the total value obtained. Where a sector receives more, its marginal value is likely to reduce slightly. Conversely, the sector with a reduced allocation is likely to have a slight increase in its marginal value. Therefore, moving some fish from one sector to the other based on marginal values will change those values and move them closer together.
Where the decision-maker is seeking to maximise overall value, the key question is whether the marginal value in the amateur sector is higher or lower than the marginal value in the commercial sector. Because estimates of value can’t be exact, there will be an element of judgement in the resulting allocation decisions. It is not intended that the decision would be made entirely using the estimates that result from a survey.
Factors that would be taken into account in allocation decisions would include:
- the uncertainty around the accuracy of estimates of value;
- whether there are any known or predictable trends in marginal values; and
- the net benefits that might be produced from change – given the costs involved in changing management settings and enforcement costs.
For instance, if a valuation study predicted a small gain in overall value from shifting 10 tonnes of a stock from amateur to commercial use, but the trend looking forward was that marginal values for commercial use were declining, then the reallocation may not proceed.
How could the value of amateur fishing be measured?
The value of amateur fishing encompasses the economic activity associated with amateur fishing—such as purchases of gear or services—as well as non-market values. Non-market values include the feeling of well-being generated by being out on the water at dawn or dusk, or seeing the smile on a kid’s face when catching a fish, or bringing the big one home. Individuals generally value the enjoyment and satisfaction of fishing well above the cost of going fishing.
However, the Shared Fisheries proposals do not require the quantification of total values for fishing. Decisions to change allocations of the TAC or fishing areas, or to increase stock size will be concerned with the marginal value for each use, not the total value. This is an easier quantity to estimate than total value, because it is only considering values associated with small changes to a current situation.
While such values are not easy to measure, there are methods that can be used to obtain objective estimates of non-market values. The main methods used to estimate non-market values are:
-
Stated preference methods—values are inferred through surveys that ask people how much they would pay to achieve particular outcomes. By modelling the results of such surveys, a schedule of marginal values for different species may be estimated. Stated preference methods can capture all the components of amateur value. Techniques include contingent valuation and choice modelling.
-
Contingent valuation is carried out by surveys that ask people what dollar value they would put on things like catching one more fish. Although the total value of a trip may not be something that fishers can put a dollar value on, they will usually recognise the feeling of returning empty-handed or with less of a catch than they might have hoped for. In these circumstances, having made a considerable effort and spent some money getting out fishing, it might be fair to ask:
“If I could have been sure I would have caught one more decent fish by spending a few extra dollars (e.g. on gear), how much would I have been prepared to spend?”
Choice modelling asks a sample of people to make choices between alternative packages of values, including a price along with a range of less tangible values.
Prices and costs associated with commercial fishing also reveal the value of this use of resources. Here again, the total revenue of the fishery or the total costs are not the important characteristics, but the marginal revenues and costs. The marginal value of fish to the sector is the difference between these figures.
-
Cost-based methods—an indication of value can be estimated from the expenditure associated with activities such as going fishing (for instance, cost of gear, travel, and accommodation). Cost-based methods provide a ‘lower bound’ estimate of value since they exclude the value obtained over and above the costs.
In summary, there are a range of value indicators that may be estimated, but the value that is most useful in allocation decisions that are attempting to maximise value overall is the marginal value for each type of use. This value generally changes as the quantity of resource used by each sector changes – the more of something we have, the less the next extra one is worth to us. There may be exceptions to this rule, but it holds in most cases. This rule implies that a balance of values is possible in allocation between sectors – the point where the marginal values are equal – and this will produce the maximum value for New Zealand from the use of fisheries resources.
General
What shared fisheries could be affected by these proposals?
In principle all shared fisheries could eventually be affected, but to different degrees. To start with, a small number of shared fisheries could be affected - those considered for re-setting baseline allocations between the commercial and amateur sectors (see section 5.1 of the discussion document). Over time more shared fisheries could be affected, but probably to lesser degrees. As we acquire more information on amateur effort and relative value, a need for a change in the management and allocation of particular shared fisheries may become apparent. For example, we may see some fisheries managed for higher stock levels or a greater emphasis placed on local area management tools such as seasonal closures or gear restrictions, or changes in management measures to maintain take within allocations.
The fisheries to be considered for re-setting baseline allocations would be approved by Cabinet. We are interested in submitters’ views on the highest priority fisheries to consider for re-setting baseline allocations.
How are the Shared Fisheries proposals related to Fisheries Plans?
The Shared Fisheries policy proposals would create new management tools and criteria to be used for shared fisheries. The potential new tools include better providing for fisheries to be managed at higher stock levels and local area management to give priority to non-commercial fishing. New criteria may include rules for setting and adjusting allocations between the commercial and amateur sectors.
A fisheries plan sets out what the government and stakeholders want from a fishery and how these objectives should be achieved. Fisheries plans are approved by the Minister. When developing a fisheries plan for a shared fishery, the new management tools and criteria would be available to be used in a way that reflects the circumstances of that fishery.
Amateur fishing issues
Question: Is the Shared Fisheries policy initiative trying to control amateur fishers because of a view that they are causing depletion of fisheries?
Answer: No. The policy initiative is trying to achieve better outcomes in the future by suggesting changes such as more research funding to improve information on amateur catch, more certainty in allocation, and better recognition of amateur values in management decision making.
The Shared Fisheries policy is not driven by concerns over depletion because the government does not believe that many shared fisheries are depleted in the sense of being significantly below stock management targets. There are different causes why some stocks are at levels below stock management targets, and management efforts are continuing to try to address these issues.
The relevant proposals in the Shared Fisheries discussion document are concerned with how management targets for shared fisheries are set in the first place. For example, while most shared fisheries are being managed at a target level that produces maximum sustainable yield, some amateur fishers may consider that a particular shared fishery is ‘depleted’ because fish are less abundant than there used to be. The Shared Fisheries policy proposals are focussed on how these target levels should be set. The proposals ask stakeholders to consider whether the abundance of fish for amateur and Maori customary fishers be a balancing concern when the decision is made? And, if a fishery is depleted, should the benefits to non-commercial fishers be taken into account in deciding on how fast the stock should be rebuilt?
Will I still be able to take my family fishing when I feel like it?
Yes. But, as is currently the case, each person must comply with the fishing regulations that apply in that area.
How long would the government fund the Amateur Fishing Trust?
The establishment of an Amateur Fishing Trust is seen as an intermediate step towards a more enduring governance body to represent the amateur fishing sector. The Trust’s role would be to work with existing organisations to advance the interests of the amateur sector in fisheries management.
To achieve this, the government would provide enough funding to support the Trust for a period of several years. Over time, it is expected amateur bodies would be able to generate funding. However, no decisions have been taken on the timeframe for government funding.
Is it the intention of government to ‘box in’ the amateur sector by setting fixed allocations?
No. Allocation proposals provide options for an orderly way forward. The approach taken does mean specific allocations would be made to the amateur sector for each stock and measures such as bag limits set to keep the sector to the allocation – just as they are now. However, there would be rules and mechanisms set in place as part of the policy to enable changes to be made to allocations – expressed as tonnages, shares of the TAC, or both – in certain circumstances. For example if the stock level changes – perhaps because of natural fluctuations in recruitment – TACs may need to be changed and the impact of those changes applied to the sectors in a predictable way.
Values for commercial or amateur fishing may change over time, and if best value is to be maintained, shares may need to be adjusted. Changes – such as an increase in population or in the popularity of amateur fishing - can affect these relative values, as can shifts in markets for commercially-caught fish.
So, setting allocations or shares does not mean a ‘once only’ setting that locks the amateur sector in to a particular level or share of catch forever. The proposals include processes for adjusting the allocations between sectors under certain conditions. This is intended to provide flexibility to account for change, and increased certainty over how and when changes would be made.
Why is the minimum amateur tonnage not set at 100% or 50% of the baseline allocation?
While no decisions have been taken on the level for the minimum amateur tonnage, government has considered and is consulting on 20% as adequate to protect and maintain a basic level of amateur take.
Setting the minimum amateur tonnage at 100% of the baseline allocation would undermine the objective of managing fisheries to maximise their value to New Zealand. It would prevent any re-allocation away from the amateur sector even if value to New Zealand could be increased by doing so. It would also mean that all changes in the total allowable catch (TAC) necessary to achieve a rebuild would be borne exclusively by the commercial sector, regardless of whether this was appropriate.
Is the government considering licensing?
No.
Is the Government considering requiring amateur fishers to report their catches? Why don’t we require reporting for all amateur fishers?
The Government is not considering requiring amateur fishers to report their catches. Reporting of all amateur catch would be unrealistic from a practical perspective. It would be difficult and expensive to manage and enforce, and would not necessarily provide reliable information on harvest. There are however a number of proposals to improve the information we have on amateur catch. This will help us to better manage New Zealand’s shared fisheries.
Managing above Bmsy
If the stock level of important shared fisheries increases, how will such levels be maintained in the face of increased demand?
Managing fisheries for higher stock levels (often called ‘managing above Bmsy’) means that fish will be more abundant, but less fish can be taken on a sustainable basis. It follows that the TAC will be lower, and that the allocation to the commercial and amateur sectors will have to be lower to remain within the reduced TAC.
The commercial take will be limited by the Total Allowable Commercial Catch and the requirement for commercial take to be covered by annual catch entitlement or by the payment of the appropriate deemed value.
Amateur take will continue to be limited by regulations that may need to be changed to ensure the total amateur take does not exceed the level of the amateur allocation. These changes could take the form of lower bag limits for particular species, increased minimum sizes, or seasonal or area closures
More fish in the water will lead to a greater risk that more than the Total Allowable Catch will be taken. How will this be managed?
Both the commercial and amateur sector will have systems for constraining their catch to their respective allocations. People operating outside these systems will be subject to the Ministry’s enforcement regime.
Consultation period
Why is the consultation period over the lead up to Christmas and the holiday season when people are least likely to have time to consider proposals?
The original timeline aimed to have the consultation period complete before the holiday period. However there were some delays, which meant that there would be a very short time for people to prepare submissions if consultation was to be complete before Christmas. Instead, the Minister decided that it would be better for people to have an adequate time to prepare submissions.
The public meetings and meetings with sector groups will occur over the first six weeks, ending in early December. Then there will be a break over the holiday period, when lots of people will be catching up with friends and going fishing. This is an ideal opportunity to think and talk about the ideas in the document. Submissions close at the end of February, so there is a month after the main holiday season to prepare submissions.
Of course, if it is more convenient, you are welcome to make your submission before the holidays begin.
What happens after submissions are received?
A summary of submissions will be prepared; we are aiming to have this posted on the website by the end of March 2007.
The submissions will be analysed, which involves looking at the case presented in support or opposition or the case presented for changes to the proposals and options.
Following analysis of the submissions and further policy development, recommendations for final decisions will be provided to the Minister of Fisheries.
Should any of the decisions need legislative change, we are aiming to have this complete by December 2007. Select Committee will consult on any proposed legislation, so there will be an opportunity to provide submissions on any legislative changes.
Will I be able to receive a copy of all submissions?
A copy of all submissions can be requested under the Official Information Act (OIA). Depending on the number and volume of submissions, you may be charged for the costs associated with processing your request. Certain aspects of the submissions may be withheld under the OIA and the Privacy Act.
A summary of all the submissions will be prepared in March 2007 and then made available on this website.
How will form submissions be treated?
‘Form’ submissions, such as those provided on a pre-printed postcard, are considered submissions, and will be included in the summary of submissions. Please note that consultation is an opportunity for people to express an opinion on the proposals, to inform subsequent analysis and decision making.
Is there a possibility of an extension to the Shared Fisheries submission deadline (28 February 2007)?
The Minister of Fisheries has been invited to report back to Cabinet with a recommended policy framework for Shared Fisheries by June 2007. As part of this process Cabinet agreed to a submission period that ran from late October to the end of February. This was intended to provide sufficient time for a considered response from iwi and stakeholders.
The submission deadline reflects a very tight timeframe to complete the remaining steps of the policy reform. The call for submissions cannot be reopened without compromising the ability to meet the report back deadline set by Cabinet.