New Zealand’s Southern bluefin tuna allocation part of reduced global limit

Press release by Charles Hufflett, Director, Solander Group (a fishing company based in Nelson), 26 March 2010.

The fact that New Zealand has an increased catch allocation of Southern Blue Fin at a time when the total global quota is reduced bodes well for the future of the Fishery. However, the first point to be made is that although New Zealand, by rights, has a quota of 754 tonnes under the "new allocation" it has set a TAC of a lesser amount of 532 tonnes. Additional voluntary and bilateral arrangements have resulted in 184 tonnes not being utilised by New Zealand in the interest of providing a consensus in seeking a global reduction.

It is undeniable that the Southern bluefin Tuna biomass is under considerable pressure and that overfishing has diminished the stock to a parlous state. In October 2009 the Commission for the Conservation of Southern bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) reduced the then global quota of 11,810 tonnes to 9449 tonnes.  At the same time the Commission honoured previous commitments to New Zealand to increase its nominal share of the Global quota from (approximately) 2.8% to 6.5%.  These commitments were longstanding dating back to the signing of the convention in 1994.

The present global quota has a two year tenure after which it is most likely that there will be further cuts - perhaps by as much as 50% -unless there is a fundamental change in stock assessment and science proves otherwise. New Zealand, both at Government and Industry level, would then have no option but to support further drastic reductions.

New Zealand was first to raise concern over the stock status of Southern bluefin tuna in the late 1970's. Informal arrangements were entered into with Australia and later Japan in an attempt to limit the exponential rise in commercial take. New Zealand placed restrictions on its domestic catch in 1981 and has maintained a strict control ever since.  Penalties for overfishing are severe and not matched by other Commission members.  In 1994 the CCSBT came into being with Australia, Japan and New Zealand as founder members. 

At that time it was recognised that New Zealand had restricted its domestic catch and it was agreed that the initial allocation (then 450 tonnes) would increase to 1000 tonnes should the Global quota increase. Subsequently Taiwan and Korea joined the convention and the Global quota increased as a result.  New Zealand did not exercise the option to increase its allocation at this time out of concern for the status of the stock. Industry supported the precautionary approach taken.  Never the less New Zealand noted its position and reserved rights set down under the first meeting of the Commission.   

As a consequence of not taking up its quota allocation New Zealand became a "bit player" within the Commission with both new members Taiwan and Korea each holding almost three times New Zealand's allocation. Whilst the usual courtesies of International Conventions have prevailed New Zealand's various concerns over stock status and environmental issues have been treated with a certain disregard. After all - what influence does a member with less than a 3% holding have within the grand design?  For a period New Zealand hung on the coat tails of Australia and was seen by other Commission members as something of the willing poodle of our Tasman neighbour.  On matters of sovereign rights, particularly in the Fisheries sector, the two nations' views are not necessarily aligned.  

Now that the quota allocation has been addressed and New Zealand holds almost the same position as Korea and Taiwan it has returned to some status within the Commission.   The issues which New Zealander's hold dear and the ultimate requirement, by Industry, to have a sustainable long term fishery can be promoted - with New Zealand having a more effective voice in the Commission.

The Southern bluefin tuna stock can only benefit as a result.