A recreational group cited it glowingly in its submission to the current review of the Fisheries Act.

And academic Dr Glenn Simmons, lead author of the spurious catch reconstruction report that is heavy on anecdote and light on methodology and credible data, has again denigrated New Zealand’s Quota Management System (QMS) while lauding Iceland.

So how do the two systems stack up?

Notwithstanding the fact Iceland has virtually no marine recreational fishery, or customary fishery, has far fewer species than New Zealand and thus far less bycatch, and its fishing industry is heavily subsidised, science consultant Dr Kevin Stokes has attempted to compare the two regimes.

He found the Icelandic Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) scheme, similar to our QMS, was not the model for this country – it was introduced in 1990, four years after the ground breaking QMS.

Iceland does have a resource royalty, based on the unloaded price of fish, which is allocated to fisheries research and management.

Resource rentals were part of the original New Zealand QMS but were removed under the Treaty Settlement of 1992 and replaced with cost recovery that included compliance and research and now total around $35 million annually.

“Overall, New Zealand cost recovery is of the same order as Australia’s, and while less than Iceland’s, there are no government subsidies in New Zealand,” Dr Stokes said. “Overall, the cost to commercial fisheries (as rents or attributed costs, less subsidies) are of the same order.

“Recreational fishing is also a private utilisation of common property, which non-fishers should reasonably expect to see pay its way. It doesn’t.”

Does Iceland regard quota as a property right in the sense that it applies in this country?

The answer is yes, according to Dr Stokes, but it seems to be less secure.

“Neither Icelandic nor New Zealand rights holders have the right or ability to enforce property rights, with most controls firmly in the hands of government,” he found.

“Both rights are expressed as ITQ, which are proportional shares of available catch, with Total Allowable Catches (TACs) - and hence catch shares - set annually.

“The annual catch allotments in Iceland, like ITQ, are transferable. A major difference between the countries is that Icelandic ITQ is attached to vessel and/or municipality/community, whereas New Zealand ITQs operate at the stock level and Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) generated can be used freely.”

Iceland allows greater flexibility across stocks, where transfers can be made  in ‘cod equivalent currency’ – whereas there is no such multispecies trading allowed here.

So has Iceland unwound their QMS in any significant way?

“No,” says Dr Stokes.

“It is still based on transferable, proportional use rights that generate annual catch allotments based on available TAC.

“Importantly, it is still a firmly science-based system requiring stock monitoring, assessment and TAC setting with rigorous reporting requirements.”

Whether the Icelanders are up to speed with New Zealand in areas such as net technology, mammal and seabird bycatch mitigation and marketing multiple species across numerous markets is another matter.

Those intent on pulling down this country’s system might like to inquire.

 ***

The Southern Crossing of the Tararuas, from Otaki Forks on the Kapiti Coast to Kaitoke at the base of the Rimutakas, is a fabled tramp that usually takes three days.

It is rated “hard” for good reason and its exposed tops that include Mount Hector, the highest point in the southern Tararuas, have claimed several lives.

The Southern Crossing has been on my bucket list for some time and I finally knocked it off last month, after completing an 11-hour slog on day three.

Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy knocked the crossing off last weekend in a mere 9hours and 30 minutes in the annual Tararua Mountain Race.

“Very challenging,” he said on Twitter.

That would be an understatement.

Hats off to you Nathan.