Significant Decisions Impacting New Zealand's High Seas Fishing

Friday, 10 March 2023, 12:41 pm
Press Release: Seafood New Zealand

Over the last few weeks, two international bodies have made significant decisions impacting New Zealand’s high seas fishing.

In February, the Commission of South Pacific Regional Fishing Management Organisation (SPRFMO) approved the halving of the orange roughy total allowable catch (TAC) in the high seas.

Then, last weekend a treaty seeking, among other things, the protection of at least 30% of ocean by 2030 was approved by the Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, referred to as the BBNJ.

On the latter, Seafood New Zealand agrees with the UN statement that we all need to work towards “a healthier, more resilient, and more productive ocean, benefiting current and future generations.”

However, all decisions need to be supported by real science. For example, the New Zealand commercial fishing industry led an initiative 15 years ago, working with the Government, to ensure 30% of our waters were protected against bottom contact fishing methods. This work was based on coherent science.

And here is the rub with the latest international decisions, what is the science underpinning them?

When looking at the BBNJ treaty, New Zealand and other countries have already exceed the 30% protection thresholds in our adjacent high seas, and there is the data to prove this. In the SPRFMO area, we fish in less than 0.1%, with 99.9% protected from bottom contact fishing, so how robust is the science behind the treaty’s goals?

Andy Smith, Chair of the High Seas Fishing Group, also questions the validity of the SPRFMO decision to halve the orange roughy TAC on the high seas, and asks why decision makers are not listening to the real science anymore.

“It is curious to me that in our modern era, where we are unequivocally enjoined to lean into the advice of scientists on all matters ranging from COVID-19 to climate change, some governments and eNGOs choose to close their ears to the science that might support commercial fishing.

“It appears that decision makers are now ignoring clear science and are making decisions based on the rhetoric of those who advocate for the notion that the NZ commercial fishing sector is a prime contributor to the destruction of ocean habitats and ecosystems.

“I ask you, how can a New Zealand sector that each year fishes less than 3% of its Exclusive Economic Zone and less than 0.1% of the high seas in the South Pacific, be responsible for the decline in ocean health, when the vast majority of the ocean is far beyond the depth we can fish?

“And where is the real science that shows the environmental benefit to halving the orange roughy TAC in the 0.1% slither where we fish? There is none.

“What we are seeing is a clear and growing imbalance in governments’ approaches to managing the impact of bottom fisheries on the high seas, with many decisions being inconsistent with prior (agreed) scientific advice and international precedent. This disconnect between the management measures passed and the scientific advice makes the legality of these new management measures highly questionable.

“Being able to harvest fish sustainably is embedded in international and domestic law, together with a long list of other subsidiary agreements. We are required to have, and do have, careful regard to “rational or sustainable use”, “adverse impacts” and “maintenance of biodiversity.”

“So, what does ignoring science and the law mean to a New Zealand fisher? Jobs gone, income for the country gone, fish supply slashed, and no discernible environmental benefit.”

© Scoop Media