The Legislative Basis for the New Zealand Conservation Authority’s submission

The New Zealand Conservation Authority/Te Pou Atawhai Taiao o Aotearoa (Authority, NZCA) was established under the Conservation Act 1987 (Act), with members appointed by the Minister of Conservation. It is an independent statutory body with a range of functions, but primarily acts as an independent conservation advisor to the Minister and the Director-General of Conservation.

The Authority has a role as an objective advocate on matters of national significance and interest in the conservation arena and to provide high quality independent advice to the Department of Conservation (Department, DOC) on its strategic direction and performance.

The Authority has a range of powers and functions, under the Act, as well as under other conservation related legislation. Under the Act (section 6C(2)(c) refers) the Authority has the power to “advocate the interests of the Authority at any public forum or in any statutory planning process.”

Following the logic of the above powers and functions, the Authority submits on the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act and adjustments to settings within the Total Allowable Catch.

In February 2025 the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, Hon Shane Jones, released a consultation document containing proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996 (the Act).

The proposed reforms are intended to:

• improve the responsiveness, efficiency, and certainty of decision-making
• provide greater protection for on-board camera footage and ensure the on-board camera programme is workable, and
• implement new rules for commercial fishers that set out when QMS (Quota Management System) fish must be landed and when they can be returned to the sea.

The NZCA makes these comments on the proposed amendments to the Act in the light of previous reports on commercial fisheries in New Zealand, including the report prepared by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser in 2021 (PMCSA Report), and mindful of the purpose of this legislation, which is focused on long term sustainable utilisation:

8 Purpose –
(1) The purpose of this Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability.

(2) In this Act,—
ensuring sustainability means—

(a) maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment

utilisation means conserving, using, enhancing, and developing fisheries resources to enable people to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being.

Environmental principles –

All persons exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers under this Act, in relation to the utilisation of fisheries resources or ensuring sustainability, shall take into account the following environmental principles:

(a) associated or dependent species should be maintained above a level that ensures their long-term viability:

(b) biological diversity of the aquatic environment should be maintained:

(c) habitat of particular significance for fisheries management should be protected.

Overall Summary Statement

The NZCA recognises the need for improvements in the Act to enable more responsive management in the face of changing climate (also noted by the PMCSA report). The management system also needs to be responsive to evidence about the state and condition of stocks and of the marine environment as a whole, and to use all approaches available to obtain the best possible data on which to make management decisions.

The NZCA has a particular interest in the achievement of the goals of the Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy – Te Mana o Te Taiao; for healthy seas and thriving marine life. Despite the Act being in place since 1996, no “habitat of particular significance for fisheries management” has been designated and given protection through management mechanisms.

The NZCA is concerned about the short-term focus and likely impacts of a number of the proposed changes, which appear to be favouring short term interests of quota holders rather than supporting the long-term well-being of fish stocks and the interests of future communities and the future fishing industry.

NZCA Submission

The Authority’s submission is based on its analysis of:

Proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act: Consultation Document, Fisheries New Zealand Discussion Paper No: 2025/03

Implementation of monitored returns, Ministry for Primary Industries Discussion Document No: 2025/04

Part 1: Proposals to improve responsiveness, efficiency and certainty of decision making

Proposal 1: Multi-year Catch Decisions

MPI proposes to introduce the ability for the Minister to make multi-year catch decisions via:

a. Either, a phased catch limit adjustment – a stepped increase or decrease in the catch limit over a specified period.

b. Or, a temporary catch limit increase – an increase in the catch limit for a fixed period with the catch limit reverting back to its original status at the end.

While the NZCA supports the intent of the proposed amendments, to enable more responsive and timely adjustments to the catch limits for stocks, the Authority is concerned, however, about the lack of checks and balances in the proposed framework for multi-year catch decisions.

The Authority is also concerned about decision-making when there has been under investment over a number of years in securing sound data about the state of fish stocks. Further safeguards are necessary to ensure the Minister’s decisions do not jeopardise the sustainability of stocks and the wider marine environment.

There are no assessment criteria to guide the Minister’s decisions on phased catch limit adjustments, and while there are criteria in the Consultation Document to assess when it is appropriate for the Minister to make temporary catch limit increases, these suggested criteria may override requirements in the Act that are more stringent.

For example, the Minister is already obliged to consider the information principles in s10 of the Act, which include “decisions should be based on the best available information”, whereas the suggested criterion in the Consultation document is “Best available information on the status of the stock”, thus narrowing the focus.

The Environmental Principles in the Act address not just the well-being of single stocks but the impacts of fishing on the marine environment – and so assessment criteria should not be narrowed to solely the target stock.

The NZCA does not want to see any criteria being adopted that are not consistent with existing requirements of the Act (e.g. ss 8, 9, 10, 11, 13).

The NZCA is concerned that the approach, as proposed, removes opportunities for public consultation (whilst noting that in fact the catch limits for many stocks have not been adjusted for decades, and thus there have been few /no opportunities for interested parties to provide input on their management).

The NZCA supports mandatory consultation with interested parties (as currently required by s 12) before the Minister makes a multi-year catch decision, and that multi-year catch decisions are limited to a maximum timeframe of 5 years (as proposed).

Decisions about catch limits and fish stocks need to be based on sound scientific data. The NZCA is concerned at the absence of current/recent stock assessment data. It is critical – and must form part of the decision making guidelines – that independent scientific advice and reliable and sufficient stock assessment data are being used as the basis for the Minister’s decisions.

Proposal 2: Management procedures

Management procedures are defined in the Consultation Document as “pre-agreed procedures for how and when catch limits will be adjusted for a particular fish stock” and are also known as harvest control rules.

The PMCSA report in 2021 noted that the New Zealand fisheries management system is not underpinned by robust and current scientific evaluations of the status of the stocks and information about the impacts of fishing. Most stocks are not regularly assessed or scientifically evaluated, and even the assessments of high value stocks are limited in quality by incomplete data.

If management procedures are to be applied, these need to be founded on clear criteria – not just “where appropriate” without any clear criteria. There is no transparency around the use and application of when and how these procedures will be applied. This section of the proposed amendments does not appear to be in line with the ecosystem-based management that is meant to underpin the sustainability New Zealand fisheries. 

There is a need for the inclusion of environmental standards in the policy and in operational frameworks to provide appropriate safeguards for both fish stocks and for the “associated or dependent species” … to ensure “their long-term viability”, and that “biological diversity of the aquatic environment” is “maintained”.

While NZCA supports the concept of proactive engagement with stakeholders in the development of management procedures, it is critical that management procedures are developed in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Act, and that stakeholders understand their roles in any consultative process.

Proposal 3: Low information stocks

MPI proposes to introduce a new provision for setting catch limits for low information stocks when:

a. The Minister is satisfied that it is not possible to manage the stock under s 13(2A) “because the best available information cannot provide an estimate of stock status or a reliable index of abundance (and therefore cannot measure a level of biomass that supports maximum sustainable yield)”.

b. “setting a catch limit under the new provision would better meet the purpose of the Fisheries Act than setting a catch limit in accordance with s13”.

The Consultation Document seeks feedback on three implementation options:

a. Limit the new process to stocks listed in a new schedule to the Act (Option 1);

b. Limit the new process to stocks that are listed in a Notice which could be amended by the Minister following consultation (Option 2); or

c. Allow the Minister to use the new process for any stocks if the above criteria are met (Option 3).

NZCA does not support the approaches being proposed for managing low information stocks, but does support a change to the application of the test in s13(2A).

There is insufficient information in the Consultation document to understand what constitutes the “risk-based categorisation” and how it would be applied.

There is insufficient caution in the options being suggested to protect the sustainability of fisheries stocks and to enable sustainable management of the marine environment on which the fish stocks rely.

The under-investment in fisheries science, stock assessment and the impacts of fisheries have led to this low-information state – and the effective management of fisheries is being hindered by this.

NZCA is concerned about the level of discretion given to the Minister to set catch limits – although the Minister “would also need to take into account explicitly interdependence of stocks, biological characteristics of the stock, and any environmental conditions affecting the stock”, the ability of the Minister to make well-based decisions will be limited by the lack of robust data.

Proposal 4: Better integrate social, cultural, and economic factors when deciding a rebuild period

MPI proposes to amend the Act “to make clear that when setting a catch limit under s13 and s14, the Minister shall have regard to the following factors:

115.1. biological characteristics of the stock;

115.2. any environmental conditions affecting the stock;

115.3. interdependence of stocks; and

115.4. any social, cultural, and economic factors the Minister considers relevant.”

The NZCA does not support these proposed amendments. By removing the science-based limit on potential rebuild periods for decisions related to depleted stocks, this change would provide the Minister with wider powers to give weight to economic considerations, jeopardise long-term sustainability of depleted stocks by removing a sustainability control on catch limits for depleted stocks, and increase the potential for the rebuild period for depleted stocks to be influenced by fishing interests.

Proposal 5: Recognition of non-regulatory sustainability measures

Two options are proposed for the Minister to consider non-regulatory measures when deciding on regulatory sustainability measures (including when setting the catch limit):

Provide the Minister with discretion to recognise any non-regulatory measure (Option 1).
The Minister must consider ACE shelving and catch spreading (Option 2).

NZCA does not support either of these options. We do not think they give sufficient protection for the interests of sustainability for fisheries. We are concerned by the lack of clarity about how these would be implemented, and how they would influence decision making processes associated with setting TAC/TACC.

Proposal 6: Differential ACE carry forward

Two options are proposed for changes in the ACE carry over arrangements;

• Option 1 – Increase the ACE carry forward limit from 10% to 15%.
• Option 2 – Additional ACE carry forward for a stock for one year in exceptional circumstances.

NZCA does not support either of these proposed amendments to the Act. The proposal to allow quota owners to increase the carry forward of uncaught annual fish tallies into the following year is problematic in the view of NZCA. If the allocation has not been able to be caught this suggests that the catch limits are inappropriate/set too high and/or that the fish stock has been depleted.

Carrying over entitlement does not address the issues but rather heads the fish stock more deeply into unsustainable harvest levels with increased fishing effort in the following year. The proposals appear to be primarily focused on single stock management and do not embrace ecosystem approaches to fisheries management.

Proposal 7: Carry forward of ACE for rock lobster stocks

NZCA opposes the proposed amendments to enable ACE carry forward for rock lobster stocks.

Rock lobster populations in parts of New Zealand are severely depleted and it is not clear how the proposed amendment will address the situation of population collapse in this fishery. We consider the amendments pose risks to sustainability of this fishery.

Part 2: Greater protection for on-board camera footage and ensuring the on-board camera programme is workable.

The long awaited ‘cameras on boats’ programme has revealed serious under-reporting of discarded fish, as well as by-catch of protected species. A Ministry for Primary Industries report (2024) summarised findings of the rollout of on-board cameras on commercial fishing vessels - including a 46% increase in the volume of fish discards, 3.5 times increase in interactions with albatross, 6.8 times increase in dolphin captures, and 34% increase in the number of fish species reported in the catch, over what had been reported previously prior to data from cameras being available.

To maintain the sustainability of our fisheries, and also to meet international market requirements, we need to have a transparent system that reports accurately – and on the basis of the data received can make appropriate changes to fishing methods and management regimes. Coupling observers on board and the use of cameras enable much better data on which decisions for the future of fisheries can be made.

MPI has had warnings for over a decade that discards are very significant for the Fisheries Management system. Without being able to quantify the tonnages involved it is not possible to have an accurate picture of how the fish stocks are changing. As stated in the Heron report (2016) in reference to discards “It is a problem that has been recognised since the beginning of the QMS. MFish and MPI have not grappled effectively with aspects of the problem and either enforced the law or acted to change it.”

Not only is there unnecessary waste with discarding, and a loss of economic value when fish is marketable, the consequence of discarding also has impacts on estimates of fishing mortality. When these are not accurate the calculations of catch per unit effort (CPUE) are incorrect resulting in uncertainty about the status of stocks.

Proposal 1: Camera footage protections for on-board cameras

MPI is seeking feedback on proposals to clarify (or limit) when on-board camera footage can be requested by the public under the OIA.

The Consultation Document includes two options:

a. Confirm that MPI’s current approach is consistent with the requirements of the OIA through the Ombudsman (Option 1).

b. Exclude on-board camera footage from the OIA by amending the Act (Option 2).
NZCA supports Option 1.

NZCA opposes constraints on access to data from cameras on boats and there is no evidence to support the need for an exemption. Access to these data is a critical part of the transparency required for the management of fisheries, to allay market concerns about poor fishing practices and to reassure the New Zealand public that appropriate steps are being taken to ensure the intergenerational future of our oceans and fish stocks.

Proposal 2: Amendments to the scope of on-board cameras

Currently, the following vessels are excluded from on-board camera requirements:
deepwater trawl vessels (>32m in length), trawl vessels that exclusively target scampi; and small set net vessels (<8m in length).

NZCA does not support these exclusions for on-board cameras.

NZCA is concerned about the exemption of these vessels from the scope of on-board camera requirements. The scampi fishery has a high rate of bycatch and discards. In terms of set net fishing, NZCA is concerned about the impacts of set nets in shallow coastal environments on threatened and at-risk species, particularly sea birds and marine mammals – and urges MPI to consider alternative monitoring approaches to safeguard these species and meet sustainability targets for the fisheries.

MPI proposes to amend the scope of the Camera Regulations to also exclude:

a. Bottom long-line vessels (32m or greater in length);

b. Set net vessels using the ‘mothership and tender model’; and

c. All other vessels that are less than 8m in length.

Fisheries observers are not present on all the fishing fleet, and there is no evidence that the requirements for on-board cameras would be unable to be met in both Categories a & b.

While there may be some practical issues associated with cameras on smaller vessels (Category c above), there are vessels where deployment of on-board cameras would be reasonable.

There are existing Camera Regulations that already provide for exemptions if criteria are satisfied.

Proposal 3: Clarifying camera use requirements

MPI proposes to amend the Camera Regulations to clarify when on-board cameras must be turned on. The Consultation Document includes two options:

a. Require on-board cameras to operate port-to-port (Option 1);

b. Require on-board cameras to operate during fishing and transit to and from fishing locations (Option 2).

NZCA supports option 2 with the understanding that all fishing and related activities are recorded and analysed, making sure that all fishing-related activities are captured – and that there are appropriate penalties – that are enforced - for non-compliance.

Part 3: Implementing new rules for commercial fishers that set out when QMS fish must be landed and when they can be returned to the sea.

NZCA is concerned that as the proposals now stand there is little evidence that they will result in improvements in the sustainability of fisheries – both the protection of fish stocks and the habitats and ecosystem services that support them.

There is no consideration in the Consultation document about alternative or more selective fishing methods to reduce by-catch and grapple with the issue of discards. The proposals address symptoms of the problem and not the causes.

Proposal 1: Introduction and implementation of Monitored returns

MPI proposes to give effect to Government’s decision to provide for the return of QMS species to the waters from which they were taken if the returns are monitored by an observer or on-board camera system (referred to as “monitored returns”) and counted against ACE.

Monitoring in this context would mean that:

1. an observer must be on board when the fish is taken and authorise and supervise the returns of fish, or

2. on-board cameras are recording footage of the setting, hauling, sorting, processing and returns of fish.

It is assumed in these proposals that the on-board camera data are of the quality and resolution that will allow for verification of fisher reporting. Is MPI able to safely assume this?

The proposed amendments do not address the issues of by-catch of non-target species but will instead make it easier for discards to occur at sea.