| Membership | Conservation | Media | Support | Publications | Branches | Enjoying Nature | Children | About Us |
|
| ||
|
|
| |
| ||
|
|
Stronger Fisheries Act under threatIn March this year Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton put forward a Fisheries Amendment Bill to strengthen the Fisheries Act to make sure that our fisheries are managed more sustainably. His efforts have been attacked by other MPs and some in the fishing industry, and may not succeed without your help. What does the Fisheries Amendment Bill do? The purpose of the 1996 Fisheries Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources and ensure the sustainability of those resources. The Bill proposes to strengthen section 10 of the Act to give clearer direction to decision makers in situations where information is uncertain or where data may be lacking. This will mean that decision makers will be required to act more cautiously to address the adverse effects of fishing on the marine environment and to ensure the long-term future of our fisheries ahead of immediate and short-term economic gain. At the moment the Minister is often unable to implement measures that would support sustainable fisheries, particularly when there is uncertainty or insufficient data. For example, he was prevented from reducing the number of sea lions killed by trawl fisheries, reducing orange roughy quota to rebuild collapsing fish stocks, and implementing emergency measures to stop excessive by-catch of sea birds. Should the Bill go further? While Forest & Bird supports the Bill as a step in the right direction, the proposed text does not offer clear enough direction to decision makers. As a result, the Minister of Fisheries is still likely to be subject to the potential threat of legal action when making decisions in favour of sustainability, as has happened under existing legislation. Forest & Bird recommends that the text be strengthened and applied throughout the Fisheries Act to better reflect the intentions of the Bill: to ensure sustainable fisheries management and reflect the precautionary principle. Who opposes the Bill? Some Members of Parliament, particularly Maori Labour MPs and the Maori Party, Te Ohu Kaimoana (the Maori Fisheries Trust) and the commercial fishing industry have opposed the Bill. They are happy with the Fisheries Act as it currently stands, and are concerned that the amended Act may lead to reduced catch limits which could be seen as reducing the value of the Maori Fisheries settlements. We believe opposition to the Bill is short-sighted and threatens the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of our fisheries. As the Minster of Fisheries told the New Zealand Seafood Industry conference earlier this year: “Fish left in the sea are fish in the bank. To keep on taking fish when you don’t have a good idea of how many are left is, in my view, like robbing the bank.” and: “ Why would anyone interested in the long term vitality and growth of the fishing industry want to risk destroying the very resource it is based on?” Who supports the Bill? A large number of fishers, community groups, conservation groups and political parties support the Bill: “Our position is clear. Food on the table for the whanau and our mokopuna must take priority over commercial interests. Ministerial caution when making decisions is in the interests of all sector groups to ensure ongoing sustainability of the resource.” (Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi representative Paul Haddon)
“The amended legislation will make it explicit that when information is absent or otherwise poor the Minister should take a precautionary approach to ensure sustainability of the fish stock for future generations - whether that be for commercial, customary, or recreational use.” (Phil Heatley, National) “One of the problems with the Fisheries Act 1996 as it currently stands is that when the various sustainability measures are being decided upon, such as the total allowable catches and fishing method restrictions, the Act does not allow for a precautionary approach to be fully taken. So where there is an absence of information … rather than requiring the decision makers to take the fully precautionary approach so that they minimise risks, the Act actually does the other thing. In fact, it tells them to take risks … we are 100% behind this bill.” (Brian Donnelly, NZ First) “This bill about fisheries is in the same vein as the cautionary approach we take to the resources of land and air to protect them. This bill is all about protecting fisheries for the longer-term use by our future generations, and this precautionary approach is to make sure there is enough fish for future generations to enjoy.” (Ashraf Choudhary, Labour) “Sustainability of fisheries is absolutely necessary to obtain that long-term protection. We must be prepared to make short-term sacrifices for the long-term benefit. Otherwise we risk the collapse of fisheries and therefore the permanent loss of these assets.” (Metiria Turei, Green Party) How you can help
Thank you for your vital support in protecting the future of our fisheries. Links
This page was updated on 17 July, 2007 |  |
|
“Making allocation decisions without adequate caution would be counter-productive and in nobody’s long term interests. Our objective is supported by iwi and many recreational fishing groups - both Maori and Pakeha - who make up the Hokianga Accord.” (Mid-north iwi regional fisheries forum the Hokianga Accord)
