February 15, 2006
The devil is in the detail and still in the deep blue sea
Bottom trawling bycatch © Ministry of fisheries
Yesterday the meeting began with a traditional NZ powhiri (welcome) followed by a speech from Jim Anderton the NZ Minister of Fisheries.
This was followed by opening statements. NZ acknowledged the process will take time and that NZ is committed to progressing more immediate interim measures. However at this stage the furthest NZ was prepared to go was to suggest an option of a network of Marine Protected Areas. Then Greenpeace, WWF and ECO also made opening statements.
More substantive discussions followed lunch focusing on the geographic scope of the RFMO as well as the pros and cons of the RFMO approach in general. The meeting has only just begun but suffice to say weve had some full and frank discussions with delegates from various countries.
Probably the most notable occurrence of the day however was the announcement by the NZ Government of the deep sea fishing industry proposal to protect 30% of NZs EEZ from bottom trawling.
On the face of it this proposal sounds great, and its not all bad, but unfortunately the devil is in the detail. The numbers are impressive - 30% of NZs EEZ is a large area - but size is not everything.
The proposal does show that both the fishing industry and NZ Government now acknowledge the need to protect deep-sea life from bottom trawling and that is a good thing but closer examination reveals some inadequacies.
While 30 percent of our EEZ sounds like a very large area to protect, the areas do not seem to represent anything like all the vulnerable areas at risk from bottom trawling. For example, we know that many of the proposed areas are either too deep or too rocky for bottom trawling. While protecting these untouched areas is important, what we really need is protection for the areas that are being impacted by bottom trawling right now.
It's also important to note that the proposal is a distraction from the real subject of debate at this RFMO meeting - bottom trawling in international waters where there are virtually no rules at all.
The type of selected area closure in yesterdays proposal for NZ waters has also been suggested as an interim arrangement for international waters while the RFMO negotiations are underway.
But such an approach would not suffice for international waters. Scientists are still building a complete picture of the sea floor. So right now it would be impossible to prioritise protecting one area without risking leaving an equally vulnerable area open to the impacts of bottom trawling.
Greenpeace will continue to call for a temporary ban on bottom trawling in international waters of the South Pacific while the research is carried out and the RFMO negotiations are underway.
Comments on this entry:
I disagrre absolutely with you when you say that the real subject of debate at this RFMO meeting is "bottom trawling in international waters where there are virtually no rules at all".
The real subject is a little more broadly, and includes issues like:
1. Fishing activities over straddling fish stock (Jack mackerel). While some countries have strong measures in thier EEZ (CHILE), other countries catch the SAME fish without rules in international water (CHINA).
2. The SP-RFMO area will be a big issue, because some countries don't have definied his EEZ.
3. The IUU is another issue.
4. The ecosystem approach will generate a great debate, and how to deal with this concept in the future SP-RFMO.
5. The bottom trawl net is only one aspect. Maybe it is more flashy for New Zelanders, but in this meeting converge many countries, with different problems and interest.
Open your mind and be more impartial!
Posted by: Anonymous at February 16, 2006 3:30 AM
