One of the biggest threats to recreational fishers is proportional allocation of the Total Allowable Catch.
Commercial quota owners have spent more than 20 years pursuing this dream, and it was one of the most controversial elements of the recent Fisheries Amendment Bill. LegaSea and our partners remain determined to keep this sleeping giant at bay because if implemented, proportionality will change the way we fish forever.
Currently, the Minister must first decide the total amount of a fish species that can be caught in an area each year. This is the Total Allowable Catch (TAC). From that total, the TAC is divided up between different interests, starting with an allowance for what non-commercial fishers are likely to catch; this covers Māori customary and recreational interests, and an estimate of fish that die as a consequence of fishing. These allowances enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing through gathering kaimoana.
Once these allowances are set aside, any fish remaining can be allocated to commercial fishers as the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC). If nothing is left, the TACC can be set at zero.
Proportionality would flip this system on its head. Instead of a flexible allowance, we would be given a fixed allocation – a set amount of fish, a set share of the TAC. If a commercial fisher exceeds their allocation, they either have to source more catching rights or pay a penalty fine. It’s not clear what penalties could be imposed on recreational fishers if our collective allocation is exceeded. It may mean more cuts to daily bag limits or restricting fishing seasons or areas.
Under proportionality, the Minister’s statutory obligation to determine a reasonable allowance that will provide for our wellbeings would be gone. With our minimal collective resources, we would be reduced to arguing for the leftovers in a broken Quota Management System. Yet, earlier Court rulings have made it clear that proportional allocation is not mandatory.
There’s growing evidence of proportional allowances creeping into proposals from officials, Ministerial decisions and industry Fisheries Plans. The most recent example is the catch limit review for pāua on the lower east coast of the South Island (PAU 5D).
In June, Fisheries NZ proposed that because commercial interests want to reduce the commercial limit for pāua in this area by 25% – catch they weren’t taking anyway because there is not enough pāua in the fishery – the recreational allowance should also be cut by 25%.
Estimates of recreational harvest in the PAU 5D fishery sit just below the current allowance of 22 tonnes.
To meet the proposed 25% proportional reduction, daily bag limits for pāua would have to be reduced. Fisheries NZ indicated they will consult on bag limit changes next year.
In July, LegaSea and our partners rejected Fisheries NZ’s attempts at proportional allocation for the pāua fishery and other prized fish stocks. Our submissions reaffirmed the Minister’s statutory obligation to set a reasonable allowance for non-commercial interests before setting any commercial catch limit. We now await the Minister’s decision.
LegaSea and the NZSFC will continue to push back attempts to force recreational fishing interests into a proportional share of a dysfunctional Quota Management System. Fish are a natural, public resource and must remain that way.
