Fishing cameras fuel cost concerns
The cost of installing monitoring cameras on fishing vessels is worrying Nelson’s smaller operators who say it could force some out of business.
Small inshore operators are concerned about the speed at which the government’s vessel monitoring system, which became law in July, is being rolled out without adequate consultation.
Nelson-based inshore fisherman Fin Horder estimated it could cost him $20,000 to install and maintain the equipment. He also had concerns about privacy from being monitored 24 hours a day in a small space.
Horder helped organise a meeting last week to discuss the issues raised by the Ministry of Primary Industries regulation that fishing boats install electronic reporting and monitoring equipment.
Thirty representatives of the Nelson, Marlborough and Southland fishing fraternities attended.
‘‘The relationship has got to be better than that – in some ways this is the first step in bringing the fishermen together and getting people talking but we’ve got a long way to go,’’ Horder said.
Geospatial position and electronic reporting will be rolled out on trawl vessels 28m and over from 1 October 2017.
From October 1 next year all land-based fishers will have six months to install the equipment as well as cameras for all trips starting on or after 1 April 2019.
MPI brought in the cameras following demands from consumers of proof that fisheries were sustainable.
Fisheries Inshore New Zealand (FINZ), which represents inshore operators, have written a scathing submission to MPI.
FINZ said it supported electronic monitoring and reporting, but called current plans: ‘‘confused, unrealistic, onerous, unnecessary and costly.’’
Horder’s livelihood sees him chase albacore tuna – an export fish that has found popularity in the Spanish market – around New Zealand from Cooks Canyon on the West Coast to the Far North.
He bought his 14.5-metre fishing vessel Moata eight years ago and has been fishing for 20.
Last season, Horder caught 49 tonnes of fish – his best catch yet.
Privacy, cost and communication were his main concerns with the implementation of cameras on his boat.
‘‘The digital side has a lot of positives, but there’s also some practical aspects that are just not on,’’ Horder says.
‘‘Yes, there’s grey areas, but we’ve got to have consultation – you cannot fast-track something like that.
‘‘You could be the skipper of a trawler and a crew member throws a fish over the side – you don’t know about it but the camera’s seen it and you could get a phone call by MPI two years later saying we would like to see you in court.’’
Horder said the need to monitor fishermen would be reduced if everyone followed the rules.
Some inshore fishermen want pursue a legal challenge to the rule, with those at the Nelson meeting informally voting to sup- port the action should it go ahead.
The total cost to MPI for implementing the digital monitoring programme is estimated at $16.7 million over 15 years.
The consultation process on how the cameras will work in practice was still to be decided. MPI has promised extensive engagement with industry and fishers.
An MPI regulatory impact statement on the Integrated Electronic Monitoring and Reporting System (IEMRS) suggested the proposal may result in significant rationalisation of the industry. Anecdotal information indicated that the cost of cameras in particular could cause some fishers to exit the industry.
An MPI spokesman said digital monitoring, and the ‘‘quick, accurate and verifiable’’ reporting was essential for the future of the industry, and the sustainability of New Zealand’s fisheries.
‘‘We appreciate that this is a major change for the industry, and that there will be concerns about its impacts – fishers do not need to worry about their secret fishing spots becoming public.
‘‘MPI is not able to release commercially sensitive information, like individual fishing spots.
‘‘We are also working with fishers on the privacy issues, and we are 100 per cent confident that we will meet our obligations.’’