The future of N.Z.’s fin fishery

Press, 7 May 1983, Page 18

The future of N.Z.’s fin fishery

This article is based on extracts from a paper prepared by

Mr N. E. JARMAN,

General Manager of the New Zealand

Fishing Industry Board.

The fishing industry’s prospects for development depend almost entirely on its prospects for survival. The concept of development implies a sound base from which to develop, but unfortunately this is not true for a large percentage of the inshore fishing industry at present. The harsh reality is that many fishermen, particularly in the inshore fisheries, are not catching enough nor earning enough, particularly at a time when costs associated with fishing are continually increasing. People refer to it as a time for consolidation. Whether one calls it consolidation or a struggle for survival, depend on whether it is being looked at from the viewpoint of people in Wellington or from the viewpoint of people in the industry. With many other industries, the difficulties are the result of problems affecting the entire fabric of the industry. In contrast, the fishing industry is potentially very healthy. We have resources of good fish. This fish is in high demand on the world’s market places. Although we are not totally satisfied with the prices we get, this is more a reflection of the economic realities of our markets than any major defects in our fish. The only limit relates to the ability of the consumer to pay what is required to sustain an increasingly costly catching operation. All projections suggest that the demand for fish will continue, and that it will outstrip supply. We have a highly skilled workforce in the fishing industry. New Zealand fishermen can hold their heads up proudly in comparison with any other fishermen in the world. We have a small relatively unpopulated country, with extensive coastlines. The types of pollution and ecological vandalism that have affected fish stocks elsewhere in the world are almost completely absent. That we have difficulties, despite all these advantages, constitutes the irony. What has caused the problems? Some of the economic burdens the fishing industry is being asked to shoulder seem to have been imposed without much thought to their impact on the

industry, in particular the sales tax on fuel. Nobody expects an industry to be exempt from burdens shared by all others, but it does not seem to be recognised just how big a burden this is for the fishing industry. Even this burden could probably have been tolerated were it not for the fact that there are too many fishermen in the inshore industry. Until recently, fishermen were being actively encouraged to develop the inshore fisheries. It must be admitted that many were affected by the excitement and enthusiasm generated by the declaration of the 200 mile zone, and that some of today’s problems are the result of a blindfold rush to exploit what was being hailed at the time as a potential bonanza. We did not develop a deep water catching capacity at this time, but increased effort in the inshore fisheries. We acquired vessels that were large only when compared to small coastal vessels, but too small to tap the waters further out. The lack of knowledge about deep water resources, about the fish themselves, and about the markets for this fish, were such that it would have been premature and foolish for New Zealand to have actively expanded its deep water catch. It needed answers, most of which were obtained through the joint venture feasibility exercises. The real problem was that the legitimate desire to expand led to the rapid escalation of inshore fishing effort, and now most of these fishermen are in dire straits, and we are facing the prospect of biological damage to some of the stocks. What must be done to prune away the unhealthy elements, and provide the sound base from which proper consolidation and further development can take place? Before anything else is done, parttime fishermen (apart from a few in areas where there are sociological necessities) should be removed. Thereafter, the main solution must be to remove excess effort. To make sure that it happens fast enough to prevent the fishery dying during its cure, there must

be some incentive. This can be accomplished if somebody in power is brave enough to recognise what is needed, and is prepared to foot the bill, either by direct payment, or by advancing the money over a long term. If these moves are initiated, then the industry will be well on the way towards regaining its health. Once the number of fishermen is limited by controlling entry, one must find a way of letting younger fishermen into the fishery, to avoid creating an increasingly ageing class of fishermen, by devising an appropriate way of allowing some to retire and new ones to enter. Other steps are also needed. The competitive drive of fishermen would lead in a short time to a repetition of the present problem. Fishermen will spend money to improve their capacity to catch fish by upgrading their vessel or their gear. If unchecked, the fisherman’s desire to become more efficient and effective and to grab more fish than his neighbour, would soon lead to over-capitalisa-tion once again. Some other approach is needed. Some people have extolled the virtues of some form of transferable property rights. I prefer to use the term fish quotas, since property rights still creates an illusion in the minds of some that it is a capitalist, monopolistic, or communistic plot to alienate natural national resources. It is of course highly ludicrous to take this view when one considers what has been done with land, or even more, to have considered what would have happened with land if there had been no such thing as property rights, and competitive grazing had been the only way that agriculture could have developed. I have referred to compensation for effort reduction and transferable boat quotas. This compensation and those quotas apply only to those who own the capital resource — the vessel. No reference has been made to those who provide the labour — the crewmen aboard the vessels, the skipper working for a company. The impact on them must be considered. We do not want tragedy and waste in our industry. The tragedy can not necessarily be avoided by making provision in any effort reduction scheme for the payment

of “redundancy” since this is more a token gesture of expiation, rather than a cure. On the other hand, sufficient substantial token gestures are better than no gestures at all. Perhaps also in the gesture class would be a reversal of the present Government policy which provides those companies granted deep water allocations with no incentives to employ New Zealand fishermen rather than foreign crew. It would have been unrealistic to have demanded that such companies should have immediately had their vessels totally crewed by New Zealanders. It is also unrealistic to assume that one can progressively “New Zealandise” vessels, against a current of culture, language and food differences. It may have made already marginal operations uneconomic to apply increasing disincentives to the continuing employment of foreign crewen. On the other hand, surely it would have been possible to develop an increasing incentive to employ New Zealanders, to create a motivation beyond national pride that would encourage companies to do the best they could for New Zealand fishermen. It is ironic that the number of full-time fishermen who would be excluded from the inshore fishery if a sufficiently extensive effort reduction scheme was instituted is approximately equal to the number of sea-going positions which would be available if foreign crewmen were replaced on the deep water vessels. This is a theoretical equivalence, since there is no guarantee that a fisherman previously fishing from a small trawler out of Tauranga, for example, would be all that enthused about moving out to the Chatham Rise for five or six weeks at a time. What, then, are the prospects for development? First, a properly devised effort-reduction with a subsequent transferable fish quota system could create a healthy inshore fishery. There are even some prospects for further developments which would benefit remaining inshore fishermen. It might prove possible to develop small scale squid trawling, or improve our capacity to catch tuna in our waters, economically and by methods which would suit at least-some of our present

inshore fleet and those who man them. Second, assistance and incentives should be given to encourage those granted deep water allocations to transform their charter operations into New Zealandcrewed operations. In particular, special emphasis should be placed on encouraging New Zealand fishermen to undertake the additional training needed as rapidly as possible so that we have the numbers we need to replace the foreign crewmen. Third, attitudes must be changed within the Government and within the industry in regard to quality and hygiene. We must ensure that more priority is given to handling our product so that it will earn more for us on the market place. We must emphasise quality — what the market wants, or needs, or requires, and what it will pay for — and ensure that our industry meets these requirements with the assistance of the Government agencies that are responsible. Fourth, additional planning should now be under way to consider the future of the industry. Consolidation and restructuring are important and necessary, but further growth is possible in aquaculture and fish farming. The augmentation of present resources (scallop, paua, salmon, and perhaps snapper, for example) has much potential and funding should be provided to allow the necessary preliminary work to be done. In conclusion, however, I must revert to my original proposition — the industry must first survive if it is to develop further. In 10 years it has developed mightily. Last year exports were worth more than $250 million, in comparison with $2O million in 1972. This growth far outstrips inflation over the period. This development was demonstrated by an industry that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, has received very little in protection or direct subsidy when compared with either manufacturing or other primary industries. I have long been optimistic in the future of this industry, but it cannot go much further, nor can it resolve its present difficulties without some direct assistance from the Government, and a greater appreciation of what its needs are, to protect its already substantial accomplishments.