Board defends new fisheries policy

Press, 28 February 1987, Page 41

Board defends new fisheries policy

PA Wellington The Fishing Industry Board has come out in defence of new fisheries policy which, it says, has been subjected to ill-con-sidered and misleading comment recently. News media reports about dumping at sea and blaming fish shortages on the new individual transferable quotas (I.T.Q.S) has further confused matters. The board’s assistant general manager, Mr Russel Armitage, said there was no doubt the new management system for the inshore fisheries and the I.T.Q.S was experiencing difficulties. That was to be expected. It involved big change aimed at solving an equally big problem — the over-exploitation and collective abuse of a natural resource, he said. Something had to be done and it could not be minor tinkering. The new system was designed not only to restore biological health to inshore fish stocks but also to allow fishermen to work as efficiently and as profitably as possible. It also allowed new entrants

a way to get into fishing and provided for the amateurs.

The I.T.Q. system was a genuine attempt to take account of legitimate industry concerns along with biological ones, Mr Armitage said. “No other system does this and anybody making criticisms and complaints would be well advised to recognise this,” he said. “The difficulties now being experienced with the new scheme are associated with any sensible fisheries management system.”

The board’s economic unit had spent several years evaluating all management systems. All had shortcomings, but I.T.Q.S had the least.

They had been applied by ignoring the fact that inshore fisheries had too many fishermen. This would have meant considerable hardship for them. Instead, a generous $55 million was allocated by the Government to allow the inshore fisheries to be restructured. This provided compensation to a certain number of fishermen who chose to leave the industry, Mr Armitage

said. That allowed the remainder to be allocated quotas at economic levels. Some criticism had been influenced by the fact that not all groups got what they wanted. Retailers wanted more inshore fish, fishermen wanted larger quotas, crew members wanted compensation.

“The fact is there is less fish available because of over-exploitation and nobody has a right to expect anything,” he said. “The sole purpose has been to protect existing resources, enhance the industry’s ecqnomics and make sure there is something in the sea for the future.”

Industry input to the new policy was considerable, Mr Armitage said. It had been the subject of more consultation and canvassing of opinion than almost any other main Government policy in recent years.

“What is happening in fisheries is bold and farsighted — it is an example of the major restructuring in the economy.”