Commercial fisheries in 2020

This section provides context on how our fisheries are regulated and managed, and looks at the state of our fisheries in 2020. It includes a summary of how we’re monitoring and reporting on our performance, how we are currently performing, the research that we’re currently undertaking, and the limitations of our current data and knowledge. It provides an overview only and does not set out to provide a comprehensive description. This provides further context for the research and innovation aimed to improve the sustainability of our commercial fisheries covered in later sections. The information is focused on how science can support changes, acknowledging that science alone is not a solution to all of the issues in the marine domain, and that the science is often contested. A recurring theme is the challenge of managing a complex biological system at multiple scales within our current complex regulatory system.

The information is focused on how science can support changes, acknowledging that science alone is not a solution to all of the issues in the marine domain, and that the science is often contested.

The section is split into the following areas of focus:

• Environmental principles: These are present within the Fisheries Act 1996 and could be more widely implemented (see also appendix 1 and [1]).
• Setting catch limits and allocating catch allowance: The QMS allocates shares in each fish stock as quota. Quota generates an entitlement to catch a proportion of the TACC each year (ACE) within the relevant QMA. The Minister for Oceans and Fisheries sets the TAC, guided by the Harvest Strategy Standard.
• Integrated fisheries plans: Fisheries New Zealand produces integrated fisheries plans focusing on each of three fisheries: inshore finfish fisheries (under development); deepwater and middle-depth fisheries; and highly migratory species fisheries. Implementation of these plans is through Annual Operation Plans and Annual Review Reports (the management actions that will be implemented each year and assessment of the performance against objectives). Not all plans have been finalised or operationalised consistently.
• Targeted management of fisheries through action plans or strategies: Fisheries New Zealand works in collaboration with others to develop management plans to provide targeted support to fisheries that are not meeting sustainability expectations and need closer management or to outline management frameworks for protected species impacted by fisheries.
• Managing impacts on marine species through management plans: Fisheries New Zealand works in collaboration with others to develop management plans or strategies to provide targeted support to provide protection for species impacted by fishing.

Each of these aspects of fisheries management are described in further detail in this section, including commentary on where information is contested.

There are ongoing tensions between the management of fisheries and supporting ecosystem resilience. The connection between the numerous documents in terms of an overarching strategy or coherent governance structure is poorly understood. This makes it difficult to identify gaps in management and opportunities for reducing management overlap, and doesn’t support a high level of public confidence in management of our fisheries and ocean ecosystem, an environment where data and its interpretation are highly contentious.

On introduction of the QMS, ITQs were allocated to different parties based in part on historic catch levels. The holders of ITQs have a right to fish a share of the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) of a particular species that can be caught in a particular area each year, or may sell their ACE to fishers.

Each year, the TACC is proportioned to quota holders who have a right to harvest a proportion of the total TACC. This is illustrated in the figure above.

Almost all commercially fished stocks are already in the QMS. In 2019, there were 388 in total.[7] Additional stocks can be added to the QMS via Section 18 of the Fisheries Act 1996, guided by the Introduction Process Standard. The Fisheries Act 1996 requires stocks to be introduced to the QMS if the existing management is not ensuring sustainability or providing for utilisation, unless another sustainability measure would better provide for the stock.[8]

Stock assessments are both challenging and challenged

Fisheries New Zealand calculates how much of a particular stock can be caught each year through a stock assessment process. The aim is for stocks to be managed to a target level – a level where a fish stock can fluctuate around a balance between use and sustainability. This assessment is simple in theory but relies on science that is inexact and uncertain.

This assessment is simple in theory but relies on science that is inexact and uncertain.

In particular, the following key inputs are all uncertain:

• How many individual fish there are currently in each stock (see ‘Performance of stocks’).
• How many fish there would be if none had been harvested (see ‘Original biomass’).
• The portion of the current stock that can be sustainably harvested (see ‘Maximum sustainable yield’).
• The degree of damage removal of these species does to wider ecosystem (‘Fishing effort has wider ecosystem impacts’ section).

All of these factors are hard to measure and understand, which underpins both how challenging the fisheries management field is, and how much it is challenged.

All of these factors are hard to measure and understand, which underpins both how challenging the fisheries management field is, and how much it is challenged.

Even for stocks with adequate data, there are inherent uncertainties relating to the use of models in a variable biological environment. All stock assessment analyses in Aotearoa New Zealand are peer-reviewed by Fisheries New Zealand using fisheries assessment working groups that include a range of science and industry experts as well as Fisheries New Zealand managers and other stakeholders. Working groups are technically open to anyone who agrees to the terms of the reference.[10] However, the often limited data and lack of trust in the decision-making process can create tension around stock assessments. This is reflected in criticism of the process that we heard from a variety of sources.

There have been times when industry has adopted more conservative catch limits than what they have been afforded because the data is lacking or not providing a reliable assessment of the stock status, or because they want a quicker rebuild to higher catch rates. In these cases a portion of the annual allowed catch is shelved. Conversely, there have also been instances where industry have mounted successful legal challenges in response to decrease in catch limits (e.g. orange roughy[11] in northern New Zealand).

Throughout these processes, the focus is primarily on the sustainability of individual stocks. Section 9 of the Fisheries Act 1996 also requires environmental principles to be taken into account (see ‘Environmental principles’), although the extent to which this occurs in practice is variable (see sections ‘Actioning the use of habitats of particular significance for fisheries management’ and ‘We need a plan for our oceans’).

When a stock hits the soft limit, it is considered to be depleted or overfished and needs to be actively rebuilt, generally by reducing TAC of the stock. The timing of the rebuild can be a matter of contention.

Despite Fisheries New Zealand aiming to keep stocks at a target level, it is not universally achieved for measured fish stocks, and not all fish stocks are routinely measured (see figure below).

The status of fish stocks relative to the target level as reported by Fisheries New Zealand in 2020.

Some fish must be discarded – for example, when they don’t meet minimum legal size limits (as for recreational fisheries). However, there are also circumstances where discarding may be illegal – e.g. of small fish (above the legal minimum size) or of catch where quota levels have been exceeded.[16] Where deemed values are high, this can create an incentive to discard catch to avoid these fees and is reportedly common in some fisheries.[17]

Where deemed values are high, this can create an incentive to discard catch to avoid these fees and is reportedly common in some fisheries.

Fish that are discarded may be dead already or may not survive after being released, so the resource is not being utilised. Fishing more selectively to avoid the need for discards and reducing mortality of fish upon landing (so that they can be returned unharmed) are challenges that research and innovation efforts need to address (see section ‘How we fish’).

There is limited trusted data and information on discards, particularly in inshore fisheries where observer coverage is low, meaning there is little available quantitative information on the level of discards occurring.[17] Discards are monitored by observers on deepwater fisheries and estimates are made of total discards.[18] Discards estimates often rely on assuming similarity between observed and unobserved behaviour when it comes to discarding and recording.[18] Anecdotally, there are reports that illegal discards are increasing due in part to market demands and the availability of ACE.[17]

Discards pose an ongoing challenge for regulators, although policy changes are currently underway (see section ‘Policy changes are underway’) there is likely further work needed to reduce perverse incentives to discard illegally, as is happening overseas.

Although policy changes are currently underway, there is likely further work needed to reduce perverse incentives to discard illegally.

Estimated total catch (all species) along the east coast of the South Island (FMA3) in 1977, compared to catch levels in 2019. As reported in [19].

TACs have generally been set to achieve single-species MSY-related objectives, though there has been a move to considering these targets within the wider ecosystem context, including bycatch, discards, habitat and protected species.[17] There are criticisms of how it is currently applied, particularly given it is a theoretical construct.[20] MSY is related to several parameters, all of which are contested, specifically original biomass, current biomass (see section: ‘The relationship between catch per unit effort and abundance’), and how soft and hard limits are calculated (see section on setting catch limits). The inexact and uncertain nature of these inputs therefore limits the certainty relating to MSY.

The inexact and uncertain nature of these inputs therefore limits the certainty relating to MSY.

As our oceans warm, there could potentially be many changes to stocks that were once only an ‘administrative presence’. Fish may eventually move en masse into a QMA in which they were previously rare (see ‘Climate change is a huge threat to our oceans’). Fisheries New Zealand expect to respond during periodic reviews of the classification of stocks as ‘nominal’ that occur every few years. There might be a need for more frequent action as oceans warm.

• For low-volume deepwater stocks, current and historical catches have rarely if ever exceeded about 10 tonnes in any given year (TACCs or TACs may exceed this amount, but catches are what count the most).
• For most moderate-to-high-volume deepwater stocks (which tend to be caught in much larger quantities than most inshore stocks), current and historical catches have rarely if ever exceeded about 20 tonnes in any given year (TACCs or TACs may exceed this amount, but catches are what count the most).
• For some high-value, low-volume inshore stocks (e.g. kina, sea cucumber, where a low volume could nevertheless be quite valuable), a lower cut-off might be more reasonable (for example, 2-5 tonnes).
• For some species with zero or very low catches, it may nevertheless have been demonstrated at some point in time that an appreciable abundance of a given species exists, e.g. several surf clam[21]
• For some species with very low commercial catches, there may nevertheless be moderate-to-high value to recreational fishers, e.g. yellow-eyed mullet/kātaha[22] in areas one and nine, or they may be locally important to iwi or others.

Stocks that have been included in stock status tables never become ‘nominal’, regardless of whether commercial catch decreases or stock range changes.

If this process were reported on more publicly then this increased transparency may allow greater comfort to stakeholders. Providing an opportunity to input concerns relating to nominal stocks may be beneficial.

The relationship between CPUE and abundance is difficult to validate because of the difficulty of collecting consistent catch and effort data over a long enough time period to compare CPUE.

Some fishers have challenged whether CPUE accurately incorporates fishing effort as they perceive it does not take into account the changes in their equipment use, the areas covered or how they target fish.[20] CPUE aims to be applicable across a fleet and therefore will not always reflect a fisher’s individual experience well.

There appears to be consensus that in many situations CPUE data may not accurately represent stock abundance, but if appropriately measured it can be a useful input into understanding abundance trends in a given fishery in the absence of alternative measures.[28] One role of the fisheries assessment working groups is to guide the CPUE analyses, assess how reliable CPUE data is when deciding how to incorporate it into full stock assessment models, and determine whether they credibly reflect stock abundance. It is therefore crucial that these working groups operate in a way that builds trust in the independent scientific assessment process.

The credibility of CPUE indices varies greatly between stocks. In 2019, a Fisheries New Zealand report on the West Coast South Island (HAK7) fishery for hake/kehe[29] concluded that CPUE indices conflicted greatly with research trawl surveys and were not a reliable index of fish abundance. In this example the CPUE data was not used in the stock assessment given the level of uncertainty in its reliability.[30] Trawl survey for this stock was also treated with low confidence (as trawl survey in this case was also quite unreliable).

The credibility of CPUE indices varies greatly between stocks.

In comparison, other fisheries such as snapper in SNA8, found that CPUE modelling was robust enough to account for changes in trawl gear and for changes in fisher behaviour.[31] In this case, given the importance of the fishery, further independent trawls were contracted to help ensure the data used to assess the stock was as robust as possible.[32]

Some examples of factors that impact on the calculation of CPUE include:

• Catch equipment used. E.g. cod-end size and length, door spread and length of sweeping gear. This is explored in depth in the case study: Pāua fisheries and industry-led management.
• Experience and skill. E.g. an experienced skipper may be able to more easily locate and catch fish than a newer skipper.[26]
• Practices used. E.g. vessel speed: a net that is trawled more slowly will typically catch fewer snapper [31, 33] (see case study: Mixed messages: Are we overfishing our rock lobsters?).
• Locations fished. E.g. seamounts and spawning aggregations can have dense aggregations of orange roughy.[34]
• Water temperature. E.g. warmer surface waters may lead to deep-diving species like bigeye tuna[35] avoiding gear,[36] or species moving elsewhere.
• Changes in weather. E.g. an increase in storms and waves (and consequently water turbidity) can reduce hook and line catch rates.[37]
• Market. E.g. the desire to avoid paying deemed values may lead to avoidance of some species (e.g. snapper) to minimise high deemed value payments.[38]
• Behaviour of the target species. E.g. moulting and reproductive behaviour of scampi varies between the sexes and seasonally, impacting catch rates;[39] aggressive species can be easier to trap as they tend to guard bait, increasing catch rates.[40]
• Interrelated fisheries. E.g. fishers may change their fishing location to a less optimal area if a protected species would otherwise be present where the fish were greatly abundant. In practice this would decrease CPUE and indicate a lower abundance of fish, instead of reflecting fishers’ behaviour in avoiding areas of greatest abundance.[15]

Experts in fisheries science consider many of these factors when calculating standardised CPUE; for example, changes in areas fished, gear use, tow speed and other species caught can all easily be taken into account. Skipper experience, fishing gear and operational factors not recorded in logbooks can often be accounted for by including a vessel effect in the model. Experts can then assess the reliability of CPUE and other data to incorporate into full stock assessments.

A suggestion from Te Ohu Kaimoana has been that some issues with CPUE could be reduced if the setting of catch limits included a consultation process where ‘on-the-water’ operational information was considered that otherwise are not considered or communicated in model outputs.[15] Te Ohu Kaimoana has also suggested that in interrelated fisheries, portfolios of stocks could be built and evaluated simultaneously to improve groundtruth assessments based on CPUE building on current analyses in inshore finfish stocks.[15]

Seafood New Zealand has commented that although the use of CPUE has shortcomings, alternatives such as the use of fishery independent surveys also have many issues and uncertainties and are often prohibitively expensive in comparison.

Fisheries New Zealand has several key fisheries plans, which include:

• Inshore finfish fisheries (draft only),
• Deepwater and middle-depth fisheries, and
• Highly migratory species fisheries.

National Fisheries Plan for Inshore Finfish Fisheries is still under development

In 2020, Fisheries New Zealand consulted on a Draft National Inshore Finfish Fisheries Plan for the fisheries extending out to 12 nautical miles (the territorial sea).

A draft plan was previously developed in 2011, but never finalised.[41] The 2011 plan was reported by Fisheries New Zealand as having been trialled over a period of years and feedback sought. It does not appear that Annual Operational Plans and Reviews have been consistently produced in the years between 2012 and 2020.

The draft plan for consultation in 2020 identifies focus areas and high-level management objectives, and is supported by other plans and strategies, providing the overarching framework for the management of the fisheries for the next five years. Many of the approaches outlined in the plan have the aim of progressing Aotearoa New Zealand towards an EAFM. Particularly:

• Integrated management of multiple individual stocks in the fishery.
• Increased opportunities for engagement and active participation in management of fisheries for iwi and Māori.
• Improving environmental performance, particularly protecting habitats of significance from impacts of fishing and land-based effects.

It is important that an inshore plan is actually implemented.

National Fisheries Plan for Deepwater and Middle-Depth Fisheries

In 2019, Fisheries New Zealand finalised a National Fisheries Plan for Deepwater and Middle-depth Fisheries. Deepwater and middle-depth fisheries occur in water depths between 200 and 1,500 m and are located between the 12 nautical mile limit out to the edge of our EEZ.

The plan provides strategic direction for managing deepwater fisheries and an integrated and transparent way of defining management objectives. Management of deepwater fisheries is by collaborative agreement between Fisheries New Zealand and industry representative body Deepwater Group. Fisheries New Zealand retains all statutory responsibilities. Management objectives outlined in the plan are provided in appendix 10.

Annual Operation Plans have been produced for deepwater fisheries in 2012/13 and the years from 2015 through 2019.

National Fisheries Plan for Highly Migratory Species Fisheries

In 2019, Fisheries New Zealand finalised a National Fisheries Plan for Highly Migratory Species. The plan establishes objectives for managing highly migratory species (fish that swim large distances), mainly impacting fisheries with the EEZ (12-200 nautical miles). There are additional obligations than those of inshore, deepwater and middle-depth fisheries, due to Aotearoa New Zealand’s participation in international agreements (see appendix 10).

Key species covered in this plan include large pelagic species (like southern bluefin[42] and bigeye tuna and swordfish/paea[43]) caught in surface longline (as well as non-target species such as moonfish/opah[44] and pelagic sharks), caught by purse seine, and albacore/longfin tuna[45] (mostly caught by trolling).

Catch volume – stocks (data from Fisheries New Zealand).

Catch volume – species (data from Fisheries New Zealand).

Recent harvest.

As summarised above, there is biological data collected on some key commercial species through a number of different methods, although the focus of this research is on the more economically valuable species. Data collection on key deepwater species is carried out annually, while data collection by observers allows for data collection through key fishing seasons.

Much of the data relied on (i.e. landings, bycatch) is self-reported and may not be seen as independent. Misreporting can be incentivised in some instances under the QMS and there are examples of misreporting occurring, see for example [65–68]. There are other initiatives underway through Fisheries New Zealand’s Fisheries Change Programme that hope to address this issue. For example, introducing mandatory electronic catch and position reporting to improve collection and reliability of fisheries information, incentivise better fishing practices, improve monitoring and verification capabilities and use on-board cameras. It is also important to point out that self-reported data is currently verifiable to an extent – reporting requirements provide a documentation trail of the catch and production flow process, which requires reporting at multiples stages, usually by multiple parties. These reporting requirements reduce opportunities for potential misreporting (because discrepancies could be detected), particularly where multiple companies are involved in the supply chain.

There are a number of new scientific methods or innovative applications of existing methods that could be applied to deepen our understanding of fish stocks in Aotearoa New Zealand – these are discussed in ‘A future focus: Science, technology and innovation’. Research trawl surveys, although often targeted, can collect a vast amount of data that could be analysed and used more widely than for specific stock assessments.

While some stock challenges are recognised and allowed for under the management system (e.g. the school shark, which is considered to be one stock but management by smaller FMAs limits potential overfishing in any one area), some issues cause significant assessment uncertainty.

For example, although the QMS has one defined hoki stock covering most of Aotearoa New Zealand’s waters (HOK1), it is managed as two sub-stocks – eastern and western. There have been concerns from commercial fishers that the annual stock assessment was not consistent with the performance of the fishery, i.e. that fish catch rates are declining in the western area despite high stock estimates.[69, 70]

Research on the eastern and western hoki stocks found that they are both located in multiple areas throughout the year (including both stocks in the same area at the same time). However, there is no tagging data available to estimate movement rates[71] and this means the modelled assumption for hoki are very uncertain.[72] The lack of tagging data for hoki is because tagging requires fish to be brought to the surface, but hoki have very low survivability on being brought to the surface, making tagging not viable. While stock structure understanding is needed for assessing the sustainability of a fishery, decisions need to be made ahead of full understanding.

Fisheries New Zealand has a range of research underway to further inform the 2020 hoki stock assessment.[70] The case study on how genetics was used to delineate Atlantic Cod stocks (see case study: Real-time genetic management of a marine fishery) provides an international example of innovative techniques that can be used to manage mixed stocks similar to hoki.

Stocks that are experiencing overfishing

The content below shows stocks that the regulator has assessed as experiencing overfishing. This means that the level of fishing currently being undertaken is likely to be unsustainable for the stock. Thus there are generally management actions in place or being put in place to reduce fishing pressure (see case study: Mixed messages: Are we overfishing our rock lobsters?).

Stocks that have not been assessed

There are many stocks that are not scientifically assessed at all (see figures on stocks above). Aside from nominal stocks described above, around one third of the commercial catch volume is made up of stocks that have never been assessed. While larger stocks like hoki dominate the catch volume, many species (particularly inshore species) may not be assessed due to a smaller commercial catch volume or value despite playing key ecological roles.

The programme has three parts:

• Electronic catch and position reporting. Introducing mandatory electronic catch and position reporting to improve the collection and reliability of fisheries information.
• On-board cameras. Improving monitoring and verification capabilities, including the use of on-board cameras, to better observe fishing practice.
• Fishing rules. Changing fishing rules and policies to make them simpler, fairer and more responsive, while also incentivising better fishing practices.

These are at different stages of implementation and may evolve as the Ministry’s consultation progresses. The Fisheries Change Programme is a key piece of work towards integrating biodiversity into Aotearoa New Zealand’s fisheries management system and meeting our objectives under the CBD.[105, 106]

The process of making these changes also highlights the difficulties in reaching consensus decisions in a shared space where the scientific evidence available is limited or has higher uncertainty, particularly given the many different and competing interested in the marine space. For example, conservation of taonga species as a key objective may support a more precautionary approach, while enabling sustainable single species stock use has a different balance of considerations.

Other work that is being undertaken that is of importance to fisheries management, includes:

• MPA reform – the Government has signalled an intent to reform MPA legislation (Ministry for the Environment, Department of Conservation, Ministry for Primary Industries).
• Te Mana o te Taiao – Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2020 (Department of Conservation).

These initiatives are resource constrained and need to be integrated within other efforts across government in the marine environment.

However, digital monitoring is expected to substantively change how fisheries are monitored in Aotearoa New Zealand. Cameras can supplement observer monitoring by providing an alternative method of independent oversight (particularly when combined with electronic catch and position reporting).

The primary purpose of cameras is to verify fisher reporting, which can facilitate use of that data to enumerate catch and protected species interactions. Key benefits Fisheries New Zealand hopes to achieve over time with the initiative include:

• Improved verification of commercial catch and impacts of fishing on protected species. This could have benefits for meeting market expectations for transparency and verified supply chains.
• Improved environmental performance (species and habitats) through this increased monitoring.[110]
• Improved resilience by increasing the agility and responsiveness of industry through improved real-time information.

The regulations currently only apply to select vessels in a limited fishing area on the west coast of the North Island where endangered Māui dolphins are found (20 vessels). The industry has also initiated and trialled cameras in the Snapper 1 (SNA1) fishery. However, there have been several camera trials in New Zealand including set net vessels off the east coast of the South Island, bottom trawl vessels targeting snapper off the northeast coast of the North Island (Snapper 1 programme), and bottom longline vessels targeting snapper and bluenose/matiri[112] off the northeast coast of the North Island (the black petrel programme).

Landings and discards

Most commercial fish are caught using bulk harvesting methods often resulting in many different species being caught together, while the QMS provides catch entitlements to fishers for individual species. This means fishers often catch species they are not targeting, resulting in unwanted fish. This is one of the fundamental challenges of fisheries management.

One size does not fit all as there is huge variation in the amount of bycatch according to the species targeted and the method. Pāua fishing is close to 100% selective (see case study: Pāua fisheries and industry-led management), whereas scampi trawling is not very selective at all. While improvements in fishing practices are reducing the amount of unwanted fish being caught, there is scope for significant improvement (and resulting reduction in wastage and a higher value catch). Fisheries New Zealand consulted on proposals to improve the management of Aotearoa New Zealand’s fisheries to ensure more efficient and sustainable commercial fishing in 2019. The consultation document noted that the current rules that set out what commercial fish must be landed and returned are complex, open to interpretation, difficult to comply with and monitor, and do not set adequate incentives. Proposed changes focus on simplifying and tightening the commercial rules relating to what fish is landed and what fish can, or must, be returned to the sea and aligning incentives to innovate to achieve best value from our fisheries.

Establishing and maintaining these connections can be achieved through multi-stakeholder and interagency networks. Well-developed networks can overcome fragmentation in the research community, and allow more proactive, flexible and collaborative approaches. Formalising collaboration can help to carve out a space for working through tensions around priorities and pace of work (see case study: Managing land-based impacts through a multi-sector marine spatial plan and case study: The Hawke’s Bay Marine and Coastal Group took a collaborative approach to prioritise research needs for the region).

Information sharing requires a strong focus on privacy and guidelines around the release of data, but with this in place, data from a range of sources could be made more accessible to improve transparency and build trust.

Accessibility of datasets

While datasets held by Fisheries New Zealand are very valuable, there are calls to improve accessibility, which would facilitate greater analysis of this data.[4, 12, 116]

While data access is not an issue for those directly involved in the regulatory process of fisheries management, this is not always the case for others, such as industry and researchers.

For example, commercial fisheries provide data to regulators. This data includes information on catch, bycatch, and location. However, once with the regulator this data is not automatically available to those who provided it. This means they lose the ability to run their own analytics to inform their management in timely manner.

Official Information Act (OIA) requests are sometimes needed to access data held by Fisheries New Zealand. This process does not foster trust or collaboration. From a user perspective it is slow and awkward, while from a government perspective it is time and resource intensive. Fisheries New Zealand commonly relies on email, webposting and data extraction and manual analysis to respond to questions or OIA requests. In many cases Fisheries New Zealand does not itself store the data, so responding to requests is difficult.[12] There are some examples of external parties having established data sharing agreements.[117]

Some databases are accessible through Dragonfly, i.e. for seabird, marine mammal and turtle bycatch and some other research. There is also limited data sharing through data.govt.nz and the Ministry for Primary Industries Open Data Portal.

Accessibility of datasets is further complicated by the fragmentation of data storage (discussed above), as well as the need to manage the sensitivity-levels of an extensive and complex range of data. Metadata on the data collection, processing and storage systems is diffuse. The regulator has principles for release of information, though these will likely need updating as the form of data changes as new technologies are used.

FishServe schematic of how current and new data systems could be integrated in Aotearoa New Zealand’s fisheries management system to create a connected digital ecosystem. Click image to enlarge.

Tiaki me te whakahaumanu/protecting and restoring: Objective 12. Natural resources are managed sustainably.

Funding opportunities for these different areas of research tend to remain separate (see table below). The majority of research undertaken by Fisheries New Zealand is focused on supporting stock assessments of high-value commercial species, partly funded through industry levies to cost recover research. Projects that are important to fisheries management but not directly related to high commercial value fisheries, such as research to understand species biology, ecosystem impacts or species protection, are less likely to be funded through current fisheries-specific funding mechanisms and in many cases have to rely on general contestable research funds, which sometimes do not view such strategic research as appropriate for their fund. Some projects are otherwise reliant on research undertaken or commissioned by other agencies’ levied funding (such as the Department of Conservation’s Conservation Services Programme). This has meant that gaps in knowledge for many species remain.

The majority of research undertaken by Fisheries New Zealand is focused on research that supports stock assessments of high-value commercial species funded through industry levies to cost recover research.

Since 1994, Fisheries New Zealand has recovered costs from the commercial fishing sector for a range of activities, e.g. monitoring and managing commercial fisheries, including fisheries research; observer, registry, and conservation services; and compliance.[120] Cost recovery is a regulated requirement and reflects that quota owners are either beneficiaries of the research services, i.e. the science underpins their quota levels, or their activities exacerbate risk, i.e. we need to undertake this research because of the risks caused by fishing. Over the last few years, around 60% of Fisheries New Zealand’s research budget has been cost-recovered.[117] Though cost recovery aims to recover cost for research for all commercially exploited stocks,[121] it does not currently achieve this. A consequence of how the cost recovery system functions is that limited, high-value species have been prioritised for scientific research. Concerns that the research agenda would be dominated by industry voices were raised prior to implementation[120] and remain.

Between 2017 and 2020, Fisheries New Zealand spent on average $22 million per year on fisheries research, with approximately 80% spent specifically on research to determine the health of fish stocks and sustainable catch levels.[117] Research into the effects of fishing on the marine environment and biodiversity research expenditure has grown from near zero in 1999 to around 20% of the current budget. This has occurred as the need for research to address key unknowns or uncertainties important to fisheries management were realised, e.g. population sizes of commonly caught seabirds. However, there remains a need for much more research to fill data and knowledge gaps in these areas.

There have been efforts to develop a research strategy – such as the National Marine Research Strategy – which is being drafted by the Ministry for Primary Industries on behalf of the Natural Resources Sector. The National Marine Research Strategy “has a shared vision of the marine research required in Aotearoa New Zealand over the next 20 years to guide and inform the development of Aotearoa New Zealand’s marine economy, safeguard the marine environment for future generations, and co-ordinate marine research effort across the country as we increasingly look to the sea for food, energy, minerals, and other resources.”

Research and innovation could go in many different directions, but limited funding and resources mean that prioritising and allocating funding to the most pressing issues is important. Within a low-trust sector with multiple competing interests, these priorities are highly contested. The ocean sector would benefit from coordinating research that improves environmental or sustainability outcomes and fills critical knowledge gaps about species, with research that promises short-term economic benefits, when prioritising scarce funding.

Limited funding and resources mean that prioritising and allocating funding to the most pressing issues is important. Within a low-trust sector with multiple competing interests these priorities are highly contested.

There have been successful funding initiatives where government and industry have come together to fund innovative projects on a large scale (see case study: Precision Seafood Harvesting – Tiaki). Success has also been achieved on a smaller scale, through Seafood Innovations Ltd (SIL). The research partnership, established under the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovations’ now discontinued partnership funding scheme, is owned by Seafood New Zealand and Plant & Food Research. SIL’s mission is to:

• Promote industry-initiated research and development projects primarily aimed at:
• Increasing the value of existing harvests,
• Reducing harvesting and processing costs, and
• Enhancing consumer-driven product attributes.
• Be responsive to the dynamic nature of the seafood industry and adapt its research and development resources to such changes, provided that all seafood industry sectors shall remain eligible for research project funding at all times.

The partnership offers support to companies to develop proposals for funding, and has particular interest in novel ideas and projects with a higher degree of risk (and correspondingly higher potential reward). This is key to inspiring and nurturing real innovation in the industry. Funding is up to 50% of the contribution made by the company or project sponsor. A number of projects supported by SIL are highlighted throughout this report. There has reportedly been a massive jump in industry-initiated and sustainability-focused SIL projects in the last two to three years.[122] However, there is currently no further funding going towards this partnership, with only current projects continuing until development. The programme is seen as particularly valuable to an industry that operates in such a high-cost research environment.

Research institutes also have significant work programmes underway (see case study: Sustainable Seas/Ko ngā moana whakauka). There is an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between these groups and expand funding opportunities for collaboration so that researchers can be more in tune to the needs and goals of fisheries management and help to fuel innovation and productivity through their research. An example of a collaborative project that demonstrates an academic-industry partnership in fisheries is outlined in the case study of potting as an alternative to bottom trawling on a small scale (see case study).

Overall, a strategic action plan that provides a clear framework for annual reporting, decision making, future planning and lead agency responsibility could be used to coordinate all efforts in this space and guide collaborative, localised plans. This could improve the clarity, transparency and future focus of Aotearoa New Zealand’s fisheries management system.

Refining our management tools and increasing transparency

Globally, there has been a widespread decline in the populations of fish we catch that has largely been driven by fishing[52] (see discussion above in ‘Known impacts of fishing on the sustainability of target stocks’). Research indicates that fisheries recovery would ultimately increase fisheries biomass, profits and food security.[132] From data on stocks that are scientifically assessed in Aotearoa New Zealand, stock levels have generally trended up since the 1980s (though there are exceptions by individual stock). Inshore fisheries had been heavily depleted in the decades preceding introduction of the QMS in 1986, so the baseline from which improvements have been made is an important contextual factor. Estimates of original biomass will always be contested, but new scientific techniques may enable more refined estimates.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the plenary reports summarise the information held and used in stock assessments.[14, 73–75] However, as reported in Our Marine Environment 2019, half of our stocks have too little information to be scientifically assessed. These are mostly minor fished species, but represent around one third of the catch volume in 2019. In addition to this, there are almost 300 ‘nominal’ stocks that are not evaluated (see figures above). While many of these stocks are ‘nominal’ as they are not generally found in a given QMA, others may be nominal due to low economic value or commercial potential. These stocks may still have high ecological importance, in which case impacts of overfishing these species could be highly significant (including to customary and recreational fishing). The magnitude of this issue is not clear from the data available but warrants further attention. At a high level, it is clear from these figures that there are significant improvements that could be made to increase the proportion of stocks that are scientifically assessed.

… half of our stocks have too little information to be scientifically assessed. These are mostly minor fished species, but represent around one third of the catch volume in 2019.

Despite the challenges, there are many opportunities to increase data, synthesise what we know, improve knowledge that could strengthen more reliable assessment of stocks, and make these assessments and their uncertainties more widely accessible. There is a wealth of data for both single-species assessment and ecosystem monitoring that could be more routinely used for stock assessment. Reportedly, useful data that could be used in stock assessments is not accessed because it sits outside of the formal research system that feeds into these assessments. While researchers who sit outside of the formal system are reportedly frequently invited to Science Working Group meetings and may also present at these, there seems to be a disconnect in how inclusive participants perceive this process to be.

… there are many opportunities to increase data, synthesise what we know, improve knowledge that could strengthen more reliable assessment of stocks, and make these assessments and their uncertainties more widely accessible.

Data that may not feed into stock assessments includes research on fisheries impacts on benthic food webs,[134] the role of fishers in the spread of disease in fisheries,[135] catchability and abundance,[136] and how overfishing has led to major ecological shifts in coastal ecosystems.[137, 138] Data on observations of non-Indigenous species is held in tertiary institutes, as well as other technological institutes, regional councils, and other research organisations.[139] This data is valuable at a national management level, so a system that allowed it to be shared between organisations would add value (see section ‘Data-driven knowledge is the cornerstone of effective and sustainable fisheries management’). When considering data held by regional councils there are also issues of scale in terms of the data (given they are generally confined to smaller boundaries than used in the QMS).

There are many opportunities to increase our use of EAFM within the confines of the Fisheries Act 1996. For example, the operationalisation of HPSFM, research prioritisation (as discussed below), the need for ecological indicators (see ‘Ecological monitoring’ section), alignment with overarching strategy (as discussed above), and through implementation of other recommendations and considerations as described in some detail in the Fathom report.[1] Ultimately, an EAFM must focus on objectives, not only on the use of specific tools, and can be accelerated within the confines of the current legal frameworks. Several sections of the Act could be applied in addition to Section 9(c): for example, Section 9 more widely covers environmental principles, section 11 covers sustainability measures, and Section 15 covers fishing-related mortality of marine mammals and other wildlife.

An EAFM can be accelerated within the confines of Fisheries Act.

Better integration and collaboration is needed to get the most out of our research investment

Science could be used much more efficiently to address the challenges facing our oceans and fisheries within a more integrated system. Aligning research objectives more closely with the needs of industry and fisheries managers is an important step in this improved use of science, and could be established during the process of developing a shared plan.

Science could be much more efficiently used to address the challenges of the oceans within a more integrated system.

A more integrated approach to research and innovation in the marine domain is needed to fill existing knowledge gaps and enable innovation to thrive, which in turn will support more sustainable fishing. Stronger relationships between research programmes across disciplines, the regulator, and industry would enable strategic priorities to be more clearly identified to support both fisheries management and conservation goals. It is also important that people outside the research sector, including fishers, have clear pathways to bring their significant knowledge, experience and ideas to address the complex challenges faced in the marine environment.