KEY POINTS:
Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton must have expected a substantial backlash to his sharp reduction in the allowable catch of many fish stocks. He made it plain that he was painfully aware of the consequences. Cuts in the hoki haul, in particular, would mean job losses in some South Island regions, he acknowledged. The obvious implications for fishing company profitability went unmentioned, but the minister was clearly braced for a hostile response. What he got, however, was something approaching equanimity, and even a suggestion by one major fishing operation that he had not gone far enough.
Mr Anderton's instinct would have been to safeguard jobs. But, rightly, he has recognised the overriding factor must be the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of this country's fisheries. Inevitably, some mindful of short-term commercial interests have railed against him. The louder voice, however, has been that applauding his initiative and pragmatism.
This suggests a more realistic view is being taken of New Zealand's quota management system. When introduced in 1986, it was touted as the prescription for well-managed, abundant and healthy fisheries. Subsequently, this country has done better than many others, where over-fishing and pollution have put stocks on the verge of extinction. But its record is far from perfect. Orange roughy is a classic boom-and-bust tale, while the annual hoki catch has plunged from 250,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes in the past six years.
These are especially crucial times for hoki. It became New Zealand's biggest catch by tonnage and value, thanks to its popularity with American fast-food chains and British fish and chip shops. Tellingly, that status was achieved in Britain only after Atlantic and North Sea cod stocks collapsed from over-fishing. Placing too much pressure on the hoki stock would invite a similar fate.
The fishing industry has not always given the impression of appreciating the danger. The 1996 Fisheries Act was designed to allow it to make as much use of marine resources as possible while ensuring their sustainability. But the legislation is short on specifics, and the Government has lost legal challenges to its decisions. Courts have, in effect, demanded absolute scientific proof of what would happen if catch limits were not reduced. That is difficult to provide.
An amendment bill, which would favour conservation over commercial interests in cases where information on a stock was inconclusive, has stalled. Opponents include Labour's Maori MPs, who want to ensure the benefit from the Treaty of Waitangi fisheries settlement is not further diluted. Already, fishers are having to cope with high exchange rates, rising fuel costs, and tighter restrictions on bottom trawling.
But the response to the latest catch limits displays an acknowledgment of the industry's medium and long-term interests. Sanford, in particular, struck a welcome note by questioning whether the 10 per cent reduction in the hoki quota went far enough. In instances where there is doubt about the size of a stock, it is surely best to err on the side of caution. Other jurisdictions have failed to do this, and New Zealand could reap a rich dividend if it conserves its stocks at sustainable levels.
Setting such levels for fisheries will never be an exact science, if only because of the likes of water temperature changes. The prevention of stock collapses is, however, a realistic ambition. Achieving that will occasionally entail short-term pain. Happily, there is growing awareness that absorbing this in the interest of long-term gain is sound and sensible.
