High Court hearing highlights the 'shrinking pool' for fisheries research and science

At the close of a four-day High Court hearing challenging the government’s under-levying of the fishing industry, the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) says more science, research and observer coverage is needed to protect marine wildlife and ecosystems from the impacts of fishing.

At the close of a four-day High Court hearing challenging the government’s under-levying of the fishing industry, the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) says more science, research and observer coverage is needed to protect marine wildlife and ecosystems from the impacts of fishing.

“Our evidence to the Court painted a clear picture that successive governments have undercharged the fishing industry, with a shortfall of millions of dollars being borne by the public rather than industry. We believe this was unlawfully done,” says ELI’s Director, Legal and Research, Dr Matt Hall.

In the 2023/24 and 2024/25 fishing years, ELI says at least $3,663,252 was misallocated by Fisheries NZ, meaning the Crown paid for research and science that should have been paid for by the fishing industry.

“This means that there is a shrinking pool of science and research being done.

“We are concerned it leaves Aotearoa New Zealand without the depth of science and research that is needed to sustainably manage fishing activity, at a time when there are ever increasing impacts on the marine environment,” says Dr Hall.

In the hearing, Seafood industry representatives argued that research into the impact of fishing on protected species should only be cost recoverable if it is a population level threat to the species.

Dr Hall says, “it is a troubling argument because it would mean that individual impacts such as the death of a sea lion or dolphin in a fishing net would not be considered adverse effects of fishing.”

Data obtained by ELI earlier this year revealed that 146 marine mammals, including dolphins and seals, were killed within New Zealand’s marine mammal sanctuaries over the last two fishing years. These deaths raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of current protections, particularly in areas explicitly set aside for conservation.

As the hearing concludes, Dr Hall says that the mounting national concern over declining fish abundance, impacts on protected species, the spread of kina barrens, and visible degradation of marine ecosystems is warranted.

“This case is part of ELI’s ongoing work to hold government fisheries and marine conservation decision-making up to the spotlight and give a voice to protected species in Court. We look forward to the Court’s judgment,” says Dr Hall.