Forest & Bird won a High Court ruling confirming that tarakihi catch limitation decisions must put sustainability ahead of the commercial interests of the fishing industry.

The High Court’s decision, released today, confirmed in 2019 that the Fisheries Minister inappropriately set the commercial catch limit for tarakihi by incorporating a voluntary industry fishing plan into the decision while ignoring his ministry’s own policies .

“The High Court has confirmed that fisheries decisions must put sustainability ahead of the commercial interests of the fishing industry,” said Kevin Hague, Managing Director of Forest & Bird.

“This is a victory for all who want to restore healthy ecosystems and end inappropriate decision-making that favors the interests of the commercial fishing industry over nature.

“People are talking about how many more fish there were in the sea around New Zealand. The overexploitation of tarakihi fishing is an example of what needs to change to bring nature back. “

“The government must now use a scientific and legal approach to manage fish stocks, rather than relying on voluntary plans and uncertain outcomes offered by industry,” Hague said.

“It’s a shame the
tarakihi stock from all the east coast of the country was fished from only 15% of its natural population.

“The plan to rebuild the industry should not have been allowed to replace an appropriate catch limit. There is no way to determine the impact that the industry plan will have, as the plan is voluntary. Fisheries NZ’s own advice was that they weren’t sure the industry’s rebuilding plan would accelerate the pace of rebuilding, ”said Hague.

“The Fisheries Act is far from perfect and needs a major overhaul to bring fisheries management into the 21st century, but even under the current system fish stocks should be managed sustainably. .

“The High Court ruling supports Forest & Bird’s position and confirms the importance of the environment and ocean ecosystems.”

What the Court said:
“I find that the Minister erred in law in not assessing the appropriate period of reconstruction for East Coast Tarakihi as required by subparagraph 13 (2) (b) ( ii) of the Law before applying social, cultural and economic factors in determining the path and pace of reconstruction.

What does that mean:
The minister must first determine what is required for sustainability before considering the industry’s commercial interests. The environment comes first.

What the court said
“The Likelihood Guidelines in the Harvest Strategy Standard and the Operational Guidelines in the Harvest Strategy Standard were a mandatory consideration … the Minister ignored this relevant consideration when making the decision of 2019. “

What does that mean:
The Minister should have considered the Harvest Strategy Standard and Harvest Strategy Standard Operational Guidelines which required the tarakihi to be rebuilt faster. Future fisheries decisions will need to apply this approach

What the Court said:
“It does not necessarily follow that the industry recovery plan was also relevant in setting the appropriate period for the stock … This is determined taking into account the biological characteristics of the stock and any environmental conditions affecting the stock. . I conclude that the plan to rebuild the industry is therefore irrelevant in setting the appropriate period for the stock. “

“I agree with Forest & Bird that the plan to rebuild the industry was the important factor influencing the Minister to set a period longer than what he had indicated was necessary in 2018 … I finds that the Minister took into account the plan to rebuild the industry in setting the TAC, even though the plan to rebuild the industry was not a relevant factor in relation to the appropriate period for the stock.

What does that mean:
When deciding how long a fish stock should take to rebuild, the minister should consider the biology of the fish, not a voluntary industry plan.

© Scoop Media