We’re defending our Northland crayfish win in the Court of Appeal
From September 16 – 17th, we’ll be in the Court of Appeal, defending our landmark High Court victory over the management of Northland crayfish, against an appeal by the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries.
In February 2025, ELI, together with Ngāti Kaharau and Ngāti Hau Hapū ki Hokianga, won a judicial review challenging the Minister's 2023 catch limit decision for the Northland rock lobster (CRA1) fishery.
The High Court's 2025 decision was one of the most significant fisheries judgments in recent years.
The Court found the decision was unlawful and ineffective in addressing the growing kina barren crisis.
The judgment was significant because it reinforced that the options put to the Minister need to be based on evidence showing they will be effective at addressing sustainability issues relating to a stock, in this case kina barrens. The Court found that the Minister's chosen catch reductions were not supported by evidence showing they would achieve the outcomes being relied upon to justify the decision.
The Court also observed that the Minister’s consultation with tangata whenua fell well short of the requirement for “input and participation” as required under the Fisheries Act.
This was our second successful challenge to Northland crayfish management. Across both cases, the central issue has been the same: Fisheries New Zealand has repeatedly failed to properly grapple with the overwhelming scientific evidence showing that depleted crayfish populations are contributing to the spread of kina barrens and the decline of Northland's kelp forests.
The Minister is now appealing some, but not all aspects of the High Court's decision. In particular, the appeal argues that the Court erred in finding that:
the 2023 CRA1 catch decision was unlawful because there was no evidence that the reductions selected would allow rock lobster to play their part in controlling kina populations or delivering ecosystem functions;
the Minister did not take account of the best available information when making the decision;
the Fisheries Act required the Minister to make a decision capable of making a meaningful contribution to addressing kina barrens and the loss of kelp forests, rather than relying on other measures that might be implemented in the future.
Our position remains that the High Court got it right
Since we took the case, we’ve seen Fisheries New Zealand move towards a more precautionary, ecosystem-based approach and a greater recognition of the link between crayfish abundance, kina barrens, and kelp forest recovery. They have taken stronger action to address sustainability issues in the CRA1 fishery, including progressing substantial spatial closures and other measures designed to rebuild crayfish populations and restore ecosystem health.
These are precisely the kinds of actions we have been advocating for.
The Fisheries Act requires fisheries decisions to be grounded in evidence, to genuinely account for environmental outcomes, and to involve meaningful participation by tangata whenua.
“We will be defending the appeal because those principles are critical if we are serious about restoring the health of Northland’s coastal ecosystems.”
