Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11772] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 Last week was Seaweek. It had the theme “our amazing marine life—let’s protect it”. That is a fine sentiment indeed but how can we protect it when we know so little about it? Not only do we know almost nothing about the marine ecosystems from which we extract fish but we also know very little about the species we catch for their commercial value. The Ministry of Fisheries acknowledges that estimates of stock status and sustainable yield are available for fewer than half the stocks in the quota management system in 2003. Still less is known about those species it is planning to add to the quota management system this year. 
We know so little because we do too little research on anything other than stock assessments. Marine and fisheries research is currently funded through the conservation services levy and the fisheries services levy—which is funded by the Ministry of Fisheries from non-levy funds—and by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. The conservation and fisheries levies are set each year taking into account any over or under-expenditure of the levies from the previous year after consultation with the industry. The conservation services levy can be used only for studying the effects of the interaction between commercial fishers and protected species. It is designed to develop measures to mitigate the effects and the development of population management plans. The Department of Conservation typically over spends on conservation services levies by about $1.5 million per year and gets a top-up annually in the Budget. 
On the other hand the fisheries services levy can be used only for the management of fisheries; enforcement of provisions related to fisheries fishing and fish farming; research relating to fisheries fishing and fish farming including stock assessment and the effects on the aquatic environment; or carrying out the functions of the ministry with respect to fisheries fishing or fish farming. In practice the research funded by the fisheries services levy is mostly used for stock assessment. About $1 million is used for studying the impacts of fishing on the aquatic environment. In other words the overwhelming portion of the fisheries services levy is used for assessing how much fish is there for people to catch. Practically nothing of it is used for studying the impact on the aquatic environment. 
Services that are provided in the general public interest rather than in the interest of an identifiable person cannot be recovered. They must be funded either through non-levy Ministry of Fisheries funds or through the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. For the period between 1994 and 2002 the conservation services levy totalled $8550000 whereas the fisheries services levy totalled $262780000—a huge difference. In 2003 alone the conservation services levy was $2.65 million and the fisheries services levy $31.33 million. The huge difference is partly due to what each of them can be spent on but it also reflects the emphasis on resource extraction rather than resource system management. 
A critical part of both fisheries and conservation services research is the observer programme which assesses target catch and non-target by-catch. That is essential work for the functioning of the quota management system and for assessing the interaction of fishing with non-target species. Between 1995 and 2003 the programme cost a total of $17 million at an annual rate of between $1.8 and $2.6 million. The conservation services levy pays about one-third of the cost of the observer programme in order to cover the by-catch assessment role of observers. 
Some fisheries such as toothfish are required to have observers on board while others are not. Although there are practical difficulties in having observers on all vessels on every trip vessels can be monitored by remote means and that technology should be developed and utilised fully. No vessel should be permitted to take from the commons unless it carries either observers or remote monitoring devices. 
 There appears to have been a recent increase in the number of observer days performed but they still fall far short of what is required. Fishers are not required to give more than 24 hours notice of their intention to sail and it is often difficult to get observers to the port of departure quickly enough to get them on board. Even if this is achieved a vessel may divert to a different fishery from the one for which observation is required. These factors all make the observer programme less effective than it needs to be and we need much greater cooperation from the fishers. It is after all in their long-term interest to have observers. 
An effective observer programme while necessary is far from sufficient to enable effective management of the fisheries in New Zealand waters. There are many individual areas of research that are needed but which have not been getting funding—or getting enough funding. Some of these areas of research are as follows: first the southern right whale of which there are only 13 breeding females left; second Maui’s dolphin of which there are perhaps only 100 individuals left; third the impact of marine farming on inshore nutrient flows and recruitment of other pelagic species as well as on migration of offshore species; fourth the use of molecular biology for biodiversity work especially with invasive and cryptic species; fifth the flow-on effect of marine reserves to unprotected populations; sixth the baseline information for areas where aquaculture management areas are proposed so that we can know if there are any adverse effects and so on. 
There are any number of areas where we need to do more research. In particular we need to do more life-cycle research. I mentioned before that in 2003 less than half the species in the quota management system had their lifestyles properly understood. From my understanding of the 32 species in the quota management system a couple of years ago profound knowledge of life cycles was known in relation to only seven species. 
But there is a more profound problem with the funding of fishing research in New Zealand and this is reflected—and partly caused—by the Department of Conservation’s levy the fisheries services levy and the quota management system itself. A belief seems to have evolved that the quota management system is sufficient for achieving sustainable fisheries. It is true that it has removed subsidies and it also caps fishing effort and in these ways it helps to prevent over-harvesting. However it has resulted in an overemphasis on stock assessment without enough understanding of the ecosystems within which these stocks exist. Although the Ministry of Fisheries could broaden and deepen the scope of the research it contracts for it appears constrained both by its blind adherence to the quota management system and the fact that most of the research is cost-recovered from the industry through the fisheries service levy and is hence subject to industry influence. Some say that the industry funds 70 percent of fisheries research through levies so most of the research is short term and stock based. 
We need to uncouple the payments by fishers from specific stock-related research to enable the Ministry of Fisheries to allocate more money to long-term research rather than the $1 million or so that is currently allocated for impact-assessment research. We could then address questions such as the key elements affecting the abundance of species or the influence of environmental variation and fishing on population sizes or targeted species and also for other species some of which are not very visible in the ecosystem. We cannot continue with the unscientific attitude that exists within the ministry that says in effect that a species of fish has been caught at a certain level for a while now so it must be sustainable. 
It is very hard to see how the ministry’s strategic view that we must protect the health of the aquatic environment can be implemented by the funding we have at the moment. We certainly need to change the basis on which that funding is developed.