The Future Of Commercial Fisheries – Expert Reaction

The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor has
released a new report into New Zealand’s fisheries
management system.

The recommendations
include adopting a whole-ecosystem approach to fisheries
management, creating an Oceans Strategic Action Plan for
2040 to achieve 100% sustainably managed oceans, and using a
central database for fisheries data to allow for greater
transparency and state-of-the-art environmental
reporting.

The SMC asked experts to comment on the
report.

Dr Maren Wellenreuther, Science Group Leader
of Seafood Production at Plant & Food Research, and
Associate Professor, University of Auckland,
comments:

“Seafood production is a major economic
sector for Aotearoa New Zealand and part of its culture –
as an island nation with our sea area being more than 15
times that of our land, managing our marine environment is
vital. Ensuring access to seafood with changing climate and
environmental pressures requires the seafood industry to
adapt at pace.

“The Fishing 2040 report outlines
some key focus areas for Aotearoa New Zealand to support
marine resource management in the future. Gaining insights
into the life below the water is an ongoing challenge, but
fortunately, innovations and technologies are constantly
being developed all around the world to gain better insights
into the marine ecosystem. For example, DNA techniques to
understand the distribution and abundance of species are an
exciting area where significant progress has been made.
Genetic technologies can rapidly provide information from
single species to whole ecosystems, and how they respond to
multiple pressures, such as climate change. These newly
added layers of information can fill existing knowledge gaps
that we currently have about many of our fisheries stocks.
We need to integrate these new technologies to make the
best-informed decisions.

“If we can modernise
fisheries management then this will support Aotearoa New
Zealand to be a recognised world leader in sustainable
fishing, which is informed by management approaches that
integrate the wider ecosystem. This will allow us to make
more informed decisions to protect our ocean for generations
to come, while delivering on aspirational economic and
environmental goals for all of Aotearoa New
Zealand.”

Conflict of interest statement: “I
was a panel member of Fishing 2040, and I also sit on the
Marsden EEB panel, and the Advisory Board of the Blue
Economy CRC. My research is funded by MBIE, SIL and the
Royal Society.”

Dr Chris Cornelisen, Theme
Leader, Sustainable Seas National Science Challenge; and
General Manager, Ocean and Coastal Sciences, Cawthron
Institute, comments:

“The recommendations from the
Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor are in line with
the Government’s desire for holistic, ecosystem-based
management to support a healthier ocean that provides for
future sustainable use. Holistic management is needed to
ensure that fishing and marine activities that are central
to the livelihoods and identity of New Zealanders remain a
way of life for future generations. Sustainable Seas
evidence shows to achieve a healthier marine ecosystem,
effective management of cumulative effects (the way
stressors interact and amplify or mitigate each other) is
critical.

“The report shows we have all the
necessary ingredients to take better care of our coasts and
oceans. A lot of data already exists and there is much we
can do within the existing regulatory framework. But the
panel found that we must do better in the way we work
together.

“A key focus of the report is for
Government, Māori, industry, researchers and communities to
come together to develop a ‘bold oceans strategic action
plan’. Unless you have a healthy ecosystem, you don’t
have a strong blue economy in the long term. It’s vital to
use tools and mechanisms to solve the challenges all marine
managers face to maintain and grow Aotearoa’s blue
economy. Having that overall strategy is critical to bring
current fisheries management practices into
alignment.

“That’s why the report advocates for a
connected worldview and sharing information and evidence. We
need this knowledge and tools to better manage the many
competing uses of, and values we hold for, the marine
environment.”

Conflict of interest statement: Dr
Cornelisen served as an expert panellist for the PMCSA’s
fisheries report.

Dr Richard O’Driscoll, Chief
Scientist – Fisheries, NIWA, comments:

“Fisheries
is a challenging space. There are lots of stakeholders and
the underlying science and management are complicated.
Fisheries scientist Professor John Shepherd is often quoted
as saying ‘Counting fish is like counting trees – except
they are invisible and they keep moving’. Professor Dame
Juliet Gerrard has done a comprehensive and impressive job
in pulling information together in her PMCSA report on
Fishing in Aotearoa New Zealand. Her recommendations provide
an excellent overview of current fisheries management issues
and challenges and a basis for addressing
them.

“Management goals are set by regulators and
should reflect society’s requirements. The current goal,
defined by the New Zealand Fisheries Act, is ‘providing
for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring
sustainability’. The devil, as always, is in the detail
– finding the balance between maximizing benefit for all
stakeholders, as well as maintaining healthy ecosystems. Do
we want to take more fish now, or manage at higher levels of
abundance where fish are easier to catch and there is less
impact on the environment? Often these discussions are quite
adversarial. The recommendation ‘to develop a bold Oceans
Strategic Action Plan’ is a step in the right direction
towards an agreed management framework, but will be an
enormous challenge for the Oceans and Fisheries Minister to
implement.

“The role of science in this process is
to inform managers about the current status of fish stocks
and the environment, and about the consequences of different
management actions.

“We are fortunate in New Zealand
to have long time-series of information for most
commercially valuable species that allow these to be
relatively well monitored and managed. The challenge is with
assessing lower value species, where the money generated by
the catch doesn’t justify the cost of research. And there
is a need for better understanding of interactions between
different species and the environment. To expand on the
Shepherd quote, as well as moving, fish eat each other and
respond to changes in their habitat. And most fisheries
don’t operate in isolation but catch a range of species
and have other impacts. Do we need or want to stop fishing
for snapper to protect tarakihi, or seabirds, or dolphins?
How will climate change impact fish distribution and
spawning? The goal of moving towards an ecosystem approach
to fisheries management is a worthy one, but one that
requires more and better information. Some of this is quite
basic – in many marine systems we’re still not entirely
sure who eats who. Assessing one species is hard enough,
assessing many species and their environment simultaneously
is much harder!

“Innovative technologies and better
integration of data may allow us to move beyond ‘business
as usual’ and it is encouraging to see that Theme 7 calls
for research and innovation to be maximised. The big
question is how this will be paid for? Although outside the
scope of the review, as the report notes, ‘clarity on the
role of industry levy funding and government funding’ is
required.”

Conflict of interest statement:
“NIWA carries out fisheries research work under contract
to the New Zealand government (Fisheries New Zealand,
Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment, Department
of Conservation), local government, and for the fishing
industry. I was on the panel that provided review comments
on sections of the draft PMCSA report. NIWA’s previous
Chief Scientist Fisheries, Dr Rosie Hurst, was on the PMCSA
fisheries panel.”

Dr Viktoria Kahui, Senior
Lecturer, Department of Economics, University of Otago,
comments:

“The context of the Future of Commercial
Fishing report by the PMCSA is – ‘the Quota Management
System (QMS) is in place, but we can do better for the
environment’. The report carefully points out that any
changes it seeks to address will be in the scope of the
Fisheries Act 1996. For example, Section 9(c) enables the
protection of habitats of particular significance for
fisheries management, but has never been used. Among the
many challenges, the report highlights that it is the lack
of trust and shared vision between stakeholders that impedes
good ocean governance.

“In the first theme,
‘strengthened leadership’, the PMCSA recommends the
appointment of an Oceans and Fisheries Minister to ensure
cohesive oversight of all marine activities. Different
departments often pull in different directions, and there is
a lack of connection among these. The Minister might lead
the development of an Oceans Strategic Action Plan and
facilitate multi-party conversations to build a culture of
trust and collaboration.

“The second theme calls for
‘a bold oceans strategic action plan’ and, again,
highlights the lack of trust in the regulatory system.
Fisheries Plans, which were created to allow for stakeholder
collaboration, have not been successful and the PMCSA calls
for an integrative framework to coordinate more localised
plans. Stakeholders include actors in research, community,
government and industry (see Figure 4).

“Theme 3
identifies the many different stressors on the environment,
ranging from fishing effort, climate change, land-based
activities, invasive species, pollution and cumulative
effects, and calling for a holistic approach to acknowledge
Te ao Māori, a connected worldview.

“Themes 4, 5, 6
and 7 focus on the set of regulatory tools available,
highlighting the need for coordinated and better data
management, ecosystem monitoring, and the capability for
research and innovation.

“The report highlights the
same systemic failures in governance that the Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment addressed in his report Managing
our Estuaries in 2020. Estuary management faces ever
more complex interactions between overlapping jurisdictions,
stakeholders and legislation, requiring the need for
integrated management.

“The Future of Commercial
Fishing report picks up on the same problem: management is
complex, there are many different stakeholders with
differing objectives, and if no action is taken, then the
stressors on the environment will lead to irreversible
consequences.

“The recommendations by the Future of
Commercial Fishing report for an Oceans Strategic Action
Plan, along with the many other recommendations, is in line
with many other international calls for integrated
management. In my opinion, however, two important points
need to be addressed: How will trust be built? And, who has
bargaining power?

“Trust is an important currency to
make a system work. But trust is built over time, in
repeated transactions, in an environment of transparency,
and among stakeholders who have real power to affect
outcomes.

“How are these stakeholder interactions
facilitated? It is costly for stakeholders to engage in
regular talks, meetings and negotiations, where trade-offs
have to be made. These trade-offs will depend on the
allocation of property rights, and therefore bargaining
power.

“For example, commercial fishers have the
right to fish in accordance to their quota holdings, but
what rights do Action groups, NGOs and local iwi have to
protect valuable areas from stressors? Fisheries plans may
provide a way to address these trade-offs, but the issue of
bargaining power has to be addressed.

“The report
focuses on integrative frameworks to coordinate more
localised plans. I think we need to go further and assign
legal environmental personhood to coastal and open ocean
ecosystems, which is in accordance with Te ao Māori and has
been granted to the Whanganui River. This may provide a step
in the direction of a bold oceans governance
framework.”

No conflicts of interest
declared.

Professor Mark John Costello, School of
Environment, University of Auckland, comments:

“The
report is rich in nice examples of case studies of fisheries
in New Zealand, and a significant section on the benefits of
Marine Protected Areas (MPA) to the knowledge and
sustainability of fisheries. It also discusses the emerging
international commitment for 30 per cent of the oceans to be
fully protected by 2030. However, there is no mention of MPA
in the Recommendations.

“The report was restricted
to commercial fisheries and it will disappoint some people
that it excluded reviewing of the quota management system
(QMS), which is the principle under which these fisheries
are managed. It recognises the appointment of an ‘Oceans
and Fisheries Minister and Under-Secretary to ensure
cohesive oversight of all marine activities within Aotearoa
New Zealand’s territorial sea and EEZ.’

“The
most remarkable feature in the
Recommendations from the Office of the Prime Ministers
Chief Science Advisor regarding ‘towards 100% sustainably
managed oceans’ is the soft language. The new Minister
only ‘might work collaboratively’, ‘might lead
development of an Oceans Strategic Action Plan’, ‘can
support partnership with iwi’, and ‘consider’ or
‘refine’ other ‘considerations’. I wonder why the
word ‘should’ didn’t replace most of
these.

“The Recommendations on data make no mention
as to whether the data should promptly be made freely
available to the public, so we must assume this is not
encouraged or envisaged (even though considerable data is
already published online).

“When it comes to
ecosystem-based management, the section recommends to
‘secure funding and commitment for the long-term
monitoring to be established and maintained’. This
suggests that there is no commitment from the government for
the provision of collecting the data to provide the evidence
base for policy decisions. Considering there is already some
funding, one is left wondering if it is sufficient or
not.

“While this is an interesting report, the weak
recommendations are disappointing. The only strong
recommendation is to develop an ‘Oceans Strategic Action
Plan’.”

Conflict of interest statement: “No
conflict of interest in terms of receiving salary or funding
from NZ government or marine
industries.”

Francisco Blaha, Independent
Fisheries Advisor, comments:

“It would be difficult
for anyone to give an overall opinion on a report that
encompasses everything from high level policy in both te ao
Māori and European mind frames, economic impacts, food
security, fisher wellbeing, society’s changing
expectations around animal welfare, and incorporating all
the other stressors other than fishing (climate change,
land-based impacts, diseases and invasive species, plastic
pollution, etc.).

“If that wasn’t enough, it
incorporates the state of play of commercial fisheries in
2020. Its current complex regulatory space, fisheries
management tools in use, the various initiatives underway by
the regulator, industry and researchers, plus the usual data
silos hold and an insight into the status of stocks and
ecosystems, to then review a range of technological
innovations that can enable more sustainable commercial
fishing practices, specifically concerning how, how much,
where and when we fish and how we maximise value from a
limited catch.

“This is a mammoth of a report. My
first reaction is of full respect to the staff of the
PMCSA’s office in charge of its compilation, particularly
when you read the spectrum of people and institutions
consulted. The New Zealand fisheries discourse is generally
quite toxic, and the first reaction of many stakeholders is
to point their fingers at all others: “everyone else must
change, but not me”. So, the authors not only had to deal
with the technical issue but had very good mana to not be
derailed and take sides. I believe this has been achieved to
a large extent.

“Surely, not everyone would be
totally happy with all aspects of it. Yet, I believe that
this report is the ground stone and benchmark for the work
that needs to be forthcoming in this fundamental (and
controversial) industry that relates to New Zealand’s
economic, cultural and social life.”

Conflict of
interest statement: “I was part of the selected reference
panel interviewed by the PMCSA for this
report.”

Professor Michael Plank, University of
Canterbury and Te Pūnaha Matatini,
comments:

“One of the things the report
identifies is the need to move towards managing ecosystems
as a whole, rather than separately managing individual fish
species. Ecosystems are made up of lots of species and
habitats that all interact in ways that we don’t fully
understand. This means that catching one species has effects
on other species that can be indirect and hard to predict.
For example, we tend to think of large species like hoki as
predators and smaller species as prey. But in fact, hoki
start life as tiny larvae that could easily be eaten by
adult fish of a smaller species. This means that if hoki
becomes depleted, it could actually remove an important food
source for other species with knock-on effects throughout
the food chain.

“Managing marine ecosystems is a
balance between generating food production and conserving
biodiversity. Moving towards an ecosystem approach to
fisheries management could provide some win-wins for
commercial fisheries and conservationists. For example,
there may be ways to improve the ecosystem-wide catch while
reducing the overall impact on biodiversity. As the report
notes, to make this a reality we need better and more
accessible data on our marine ecosystems and more research
to improve understanding of how they
work.”

Conflict of interest statement: Professor
Plank served as an expert panellist for the PMCSA’s
fisheries
report.

© Scoop Media