New fish-quota policy: a bold attempt to deal with a severe problem

Press, 25 February 1987, Page 18

New fish-quota policy: a bold attempt to deal with a severe problem

Fish has become scarce and more expensive recently. A new quota system for inshore fisheries has been blamed. One of the architects of the system, Mr R. O. ARMITAGE, assistant general manager of the Fishing Industry Board, here offers a defence of it.

The new fisheries policy is one of the most significant changes taking place in New Zealand. It is the equivalent of the enclosures of common land which took place in Britain in the seventeen century. All New Zealanders snould be aware of it. Unfortunately a ’ lot of media comment does not treat the matter as well as it should or help in informing the public adequately. In my view there have been several ill-considered and misleading statements on the policy, introduced on October 1, and in particular the Fishing Industry Board’s motives on some aspects. These need to be answered. There is no doubt that the establishment of the new management system for the inshore fisheries, individual transferrable quotas (I.T.Q.s), is experiencing difficulties. It would have been naive to expect otherwise. This new system is a considerable change aimed at solving a serious problem, the over-exploi-tation and collective abuse of one of our national resources: fisheries. If we have been successful’at one thing as a nation it has been at ravaging and depleting our resources in an amazingly short time, be they forestry, geothermal, or fisheries resources. It is unforgiveable that we should allow a heritage of thousands of years, which we hold in trust, to be depleted because of greed and mismanagement.

Most informed New Zealanders would have been aware for some time that something was dreadfully wrong with our inshore fish stocks. Something had to be done — and it could not be minor tinkering.

It is our good fortune that we have a Minister of Fisheries, a Government, and a Ministry of Fisheries that were prepared to act boldly and decisively on new initiatives in an attempt to solve the problem. The new scheme is designed not only to restore biological health to inshore stocks but also to enable fishermen to operate as efficiently and therefore as profitably as possible, to allow new entrants a way to get into fishing, and to provide for amateur fishing. .

The Government and the Ministry need not have considered other than biological needs. It may have been simpler just to impose over-all quotas and ignore the economic consequences for existing or new fishermen. The quota system is, however, a genuine attempt to take account of legitimate industry concerns and issues other than biological ones. No other system does this and anybody making criticisms and complaints would be well advised to recognise this.

It is mischievous to imply, as some articles have done, that the scheme is a sinister plot foisted on an unsuspecting industry. The difficulties now being experienced with the new scheme are associated with any sensible fisheries management system. The only other option was to do nothing and let the inshore stocks collapse and hope that they might recover biologically some time in the future. Would this have been acceptable to most people? If the public do not support what is being done and if commercial fishermen are not committed to making the system work, however, doing nothing might be the only option left. The Fishing Industry Board’s economics unit, well respected in international fisheries circles, spent several years evaluating all management systems. All have shortcomings, but I.T.Q.S have the fewest. The fundamental problem is to find a system that overcomes the tendency for effort, even with controls, continually to increase beyond the level the resource can support. I.T.Qs take account of this. The fishing pressure under I.T.Qs can only be as high as scientists estimate the resource can stand.

The greatest difficulties associated with the scheme are ones of concept. It involves a different philosophy, in the form of private property rights and a different psychology for those involved as fishermen are required to move away from being hunters more towards being farmers.

The inshore fisheries have too many fishermen. I.T.Q.S could have been applied ignoring this reality. This would have placed many fishermen in considerable hardship. The Government, and the Fisheries Minister, Mr Colin Moyle, in particular, did not take this approach, however. In a significant expression of confidence in the future of the industry, $55 million was allocated to restructure the inshore fisheries, a figure that many in the industry recognise as very generous. This restructuring meant providing compensation to a certain number of fishermen to leave the industry so that those

remaining would be able to be allocated quotas at economic levels.

It is disappointing that groups who will benefit from this new scheme are not publicly supporting it but instead are criticising the difficulties.

It must be said that in many cases many of these criticisms are influenced by the fact that the new system has not given all groups what they want. Retailers want more inshore species, some processors want more fish for processing, some fishermen want larger quotas, and crew members want compensation.

The fact is that there is less fish available because of overexploitation and nobody has a right to expect anything. Fish resources never did “belong to the fishermen who catch them,” to quote a recent newspaper article. They belong to the nation which has an obligation to manage them effectively for all New Zealanders. While it can be understood why some groups did want more, the fact they did not get what they wanted should not be taken as valid grounds for saying the scheme itself is unworkable. Officials of the Fishing Industry Board or the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have nothing to gain for themselves by promoting this policy. The sole purpose has been to protect existing resources, enhance the industry’s economics, and make sure there is something in the sea for the future.

I.T.Qs have been in operation in the deepwater fishery for almost four years. When the quotas were first suggested, a number of companies, including some major ones, were very sceptical. Not only does it work, it has been a principal reason for the highly successful development that has taken place in the deepwater fisheries. Ask any company now and they will give the system unqualified support. It has been good for their profitability, good for

the resource, and good for the country. It is quite incorrect to suggest there was no advice taken from fishermen in formulating the new policy. This new policy has been the subject of more consultation and canvassing of opinion than almost any other major Government policy in recent years.

I myself attended 25 meetings, which was by no means all of them, from Kaitaia to Invercargill to seek industry reaction. The industry input was considerable. A problem with some issues was that there were as many

different views as there were Individual circumstances. In the end the Ministry had to make a decision — it could not fence-sit hoping to please all. The fact is that fishermen had been asking for years for action to prevent resource depletion and any scheme had to have their endorsement. Nationwide polls have shown that it does. It has always been accepted that any management system has to have the co-operation and support of the fishing industry if it is to work effectively. The extensive consultation which took place was aimed at achieving just that. Of course the problems with by-catch (fish caught incidental to the main target species for which insufficient or no quota may be held) and the possibility of dumping were anticipated. This is a problem with all multispecies fisheries management systems. There is no ideal solution. Nobody likes to see dumping, least of all responsible fishermen, and for that reason it is illegal and the penalties for doing it are severe. The question critics of the new policy never answer is: what is a viable alternative that would overcome problems of excess effort and pressure on resources without continual bureaucratic intervention? Our view is that there is not one. The disarray in fisheries elsewhere in the world is evidence of this.

New Zealand is regarded as being in the forefront of innovative fisheries management This may unnerve some people and worry the faint-hearted who are so used to Governments taking soft options on difficult decisions. What is happening in fisheries is bold and farsighted. It is an example of the major restructuring in the economy. The board has promoted the inshore restructuring and I.T.Q. policies because they create a sound framework for fisheries development that is equitable and for the good of the industry as a whole. We stand on the record of what has been achieved in fisheries development over the last decade. It is a success story that the industry and the board is proud of.

‘Something was dreadfully wrong with our inshore fish stocks’