Can We Kill Endangered Animals? A Review of New Zealand’s Bycatch Laws

By Grace Goodwin

New Zealand’s oceans are home to invaluable marine life. New Zealand’s commercial fishing industry is invaluable to the economy. These two values are diametrically opposed in many ways, and the tug of war between environment and economy has played out on many different stages over many different years. It may be feasible to find a way to end fishing bycatch without making the commercial fishing industry inviable. However, it would require rigorous legislative reform and cooperation from an industry that has been notoriously closed off.[1]

The Bycatch Problem

During the fishing process, species outside the target species can be accidentally snared or caught. Often these individuals are inadvertently killed and are therefore classed as bycatch. One might think that a couple of extra fish in the net could not be too harmful, but particular issues arise when protected or endangered animals become bycatch. These species include iconic kiwi wildlife such as Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins and New Zealand fur seals. Generally, it is illegal to harm a protected species, but in the case of commercial fisheries one just needs to fill out a form and the incident is filed away to publish in a sad report at the end of the year.[2] Bycatch is generally viewed as a necessary evil that occurs in the course of fishing, but with more and more countries adopting zero bycatch goals, perspective is shifting.[3]

It is important to provide a statistical frame of reference for how significant bycatch is. 879 protected species were observed to have been caught in 2017, with the estimated catch being twice this number.[4] There have also been persistent issues surrounding underreporting bycatch, and only 12% of boats are monitored at any time.[5] When monitoring is conducted, it is nine times more likely that bycatch of a protected species is reported.[6] This speaks to the number of protected species killed being far greater than what is recorded, and significant uncertainty over the actual level of bycatch.

Solving the Problem

Arguably the first step in better regulation is better monitoring. How can we reduce bycatch if the actual number of protected individuals harvested is unknown? A few months ago it was announced that commercial fishing boats would be outfitted with cameras, with special attention paid to areas with high numbers of protected species.[7] The snag is that this will take until 2024 to fully implement. In the meantime, our protected species will be proverbial sitting ducks. This is just one in a series of delays in the implementation of cameras on commercial fishing boats, and the government continues to push back the deadline for implementation.[8] Nevertheless, the announcement of plans to allocate funds does indicate a shift in the right direction. When cameras were installed on boats in Australia, eight times more marine mammals were reported as caught.[9] With more accurate reporting, innovative solutions to reducing bycatch and modelling the reduction of bycatch will have a far more solid fact base.

In response to public pressure, the government has also rolled out a goal of reducing seabird bycatch to zero. This goal, when combined with the implementation of cameras, seems to be a measure that will see real results.[10] The snag this time (aside from marine mammals continuing to be caught) is that all measures need to be voluntarily adopted.[11] With the resistance of the industry to implement cameras onboard it can be assumed that these measures will create similar push back.

There needs to be stronger legislative backing to govern bycatch, which brings into question the current legislation (the Fisheries Act 1996). Inherent to the Act is the idea that killing non-target species is inevitable.[12] It advocates for proper reporting of bycatch, but as the statistics show, not even this is done well. There is no penalty for killing a protected species and few incentives to reduce bycatch. This instils complacency in the industry, and while some commercial boats chose to implement measures to reduce bycatch,[13] the giants of the fishing industry have actively pushed back against them.[14] To be clear, there are ways to reduce and potentially end bycatch[15] without harming the industry in the long term; they simply have not been implemented in New Zealand.

Forest and Bird have contended that part of a solution can be found within the Marine Mammal Protection Act 1978.[16] The Act can be used to implement marine mammal sanctuaries and management plans that would reduce bycatch. While the Act provides for these protections, the population management plans have never been used. The non-use of a regulation that could protect vulnerable marine mammals calls for a government inquiry into why these measures have not been put into place. The review and potential use of this Act would be hugely beneficial for marine mammals, but it still leaves vulnerable groups like sea birds and sharks unprotected.

New Zealand claims to be a frontrunner in sustainable fishing practices, but while other countries have implemented pragmatic measures to reduce bycatch, we have been left in the dust.[17] New Zealand’s protected species do not benefit from setting hollow goals of zero bycatch at some point in the future. Concrete legislative backing that encourages positive change is needed to better defend our protected species.

 The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.

Featured image source: Christopher Laberinto on Unsplash

[1] Forest & Bird “Zero Bycatch” (Media Release, 1 May 2018).

[2] Michael Neilson “New Zealand commercial long-line fishers nine times more likely to report bycatch with observers on board - Fisheries NZ report” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, Auckland, 23 January 2020.

[3] Forest & Bird A Pathway to Zero Bycatch  (August 2019).

[4] Ministry for Primary Industries “Summary of Observed Catches” (2019) Protected Species Bycatch https://psc.dragonfly.co.nz/2019v1/released/.

[5] Above n 1.

[6] Above n 2.

[7] 1 News “Government to pay up to $60 million to install cameras on commercial fishing boats” (4 September 2020) TVNZ https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/government-pay-up-60-million-install-cameras-commercial-fishing-boats.

[8] Greenpeace “All the times this NZ government delayed or watered down ocean protection” (10 June 2020) https://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/story/all-the-times-this-nz-government-delayed-or-watered-down-ocean-protection/.

[9] Above n 3, at 14.

[10] Forest & Bird “New goal of zero seabird deaths on fishing boats” (media release, 27 May 2020).

[11] Above n 8.

[12]Above n 3, at 6.

[13] Hookpod “Celebrating Zero Seabird Bycatch!” (press release, 3 July 2020).

[14] Scoop “NZ Govt Acts As Advocate For Fishing Industry At International Meeting” (press release, 19 February 2020).

[15]Above n 3.

[16] Above n 3, at 13.

[17]Above n 3.