Global IssuesAntarcticaNew Zealand Relationship with AntarcticaEnvironmental Protection in AntarcticaAntarctic Marine Living Resources and the Ross SeaVisiting Antarctica (Science and Tourism)Ross Sea StrategyDisarmamentEnvironmentHuman RightsSecurityInternational OrganisationsAfricaAsia NorthAsia South and SoutheastAustraliaEuropeLatin AmericaMiddle EastNorth AmericaPacific
Start writing the country or territory name in the box. Typing more letters narrows the search. Click "go" or hit "Enter" to go to the information paper on the country or territory.
(We don't have information papers on all countries and territories.)
Although we have tried to use plain English content on the site, you may come across specialist terms and acronyms. Find out what they mean in our glossary of terms.
If you come across a term that isn't included in the Glossary please send us an email.
1. During April and May 2005, the Officials Antarctic Committee, which is chaired by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, conducted public consultation on a long-term framework for management of marine living resources and biodiversity in the Ross Sea. The consultation sought views on future management of the Ross Sea in the context of New Zealand’s 2002 Statement of Strategic Interest in Antarctica, the Ross Sea’s environmental and biodiversity values, and increased interest in toothfish fishing in recent years. The consultation specifically sought views on the establishment of Antarctic special protected areas (ASPAs) and Antarctic specially managed areas (ASMAs) under the Antarctic Treaty Environmental Protocol, development of an assessed fishery under CCAMLR, any additional elements a management framework should contain, and research priorities.
2. This document briefly summarises the submissions and identifies the most common arguments. All institutional submitters are summarised. Submissions from individuals are summarised by category.
3. In total, 46 submissions were received. Of those, 24 were from individuals and the remaining 22 were from institutional submitters such as companies, non-government organisations and research organisations. By sector, 25 submitters represented fishing or other business interests, seven represented non-government organisations including Antarctica groups and environmental lobby groups, five were from research organisations and individual scientists, and the remaining nine were from individuals with no apparent affiliation to any of these sectors.
4. On May 27, 2005, seven of the submitters attended a hearing at MFAT to present oral submissions.
5. Most submitters from the fishing industry and the wider business community supported the development of an assessed fishery in the Ross Sea, either in the near future or over time as evidence is available to support the move. Most industry/business submitters were sceptical about the need for and potential effectiveness of marine protected areas.
6. By contrast, none of the NGO and research organisation submitters supported the development of an assessed fishery, almost all supported the establishment of protected areas covering substantial areas of the Sea, and many wanted a moratorium on fishing at least until those protected areas are established. Some wanted a permanent end to fishing in the Ross Sea.
7. Of the nine submissions from individuals with no apparent affiliations, eight supported greater protection of the Ross Sea environment, including five that either opposed fishing altogether or opposed the development of an assessed fishery. One of these submitters supported the development of an assessed fishery.
8. Almost all fisheries submitters and some NGO and research submitters expressed support for increased measures to detect and deal with illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing.
9. Fishing industry and other business submitters said that, after eight years of research, there is now enough or nearly enough information to justify the move to an assessed fishery and establish a sustainable yield.
10. They also emphasised the environmental record of New Zealand vessels in the Ross Sea, including its zero seabird by-catch. New Zealand innovations were said to have raised environmental standards throughout the CCAMLR region and, conversely, CCAMLR practices were said to have raised the environmental standards of vessels operating in New Zealand waters. Pride in the fishing companies’ environmental record was a common theme in submissions from crew members.
11. Fishing industry submitters emphasised the economic significance of the fishery to New Zealand fishing companies and crews. Companies were said to have invested in excess of $NZ50 million in developing the fishery, on the expectation that access would continue and, ultimately, increase. Many crew members submitted that their livelihoods depended on being able to take part in the toothfish fishery. As one commented:
"I am dependent on fishing for my livelihood. I have a young family and a big mortgage… The Ross Sea fishing trips are my main income and without them I would have to look for employment elsewhere".
12. Fishing industry submitters also noted that the number of vessels involved in the fishery dropped off in 2004/05, suggesting that this may have relieved some pressure on the Ross Sea environment. They also noted that in general the number of vessels fishing in CCAMLR sub-areas 88.1 and 88.2 is generally significantly below the number allowed to fish (see Appendix 3 for further details).
13. Concerns were expressed about the annual permit process that CCAMLR uses to manage the current exploratory fishery. This was said to create uncertainty and stress for companies and crews. One submitter said the lack of a clear, long-term allocation process that limits the number of vessels in the fishery creates a risk of too many vessels chasing too few fish, which could create an incentive for unregulated fishing to the detriment of the environment.
14. Several submitters said the presence of a well-regulated fishery helped detect IUU fishing.
15. NGO groups and research organisations sought greater protection for the Ross Sea two key reasons:
16. Many of these groups emphasised the need to take an ecosystem approach to managing the Ross Sea, rather than focusing on the sustainability of toothfish stocks. One submitter suggested New Zealand has a high level of responsibility to protect the Sea because of its role in pioneering the toothfish fishery. One research organisation said slow ecosystem recovery rates in the Ross Sea meant a greater than usual level of protection was required, and another submitter from the research community said the Ross Sea had low rates of primary production (of phytoplankton), which made it vulnerable to significant variations in fish production from year to year and meant the Sea must be managed with a higher than usual degree of precaution.
17. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) submitted that there is not currently sufficient information to establish a sustainable yield for toothfish, but that information might be available in about 2-3 years. It and other organisations submitted that the general level of knowledge about Ross Sea ecosystems – including the potential impact of fishing – is very low.
18. There were differing views among NGOs and research organisations about the environmental record of Ross Sea fishing vessels. Some commended the standards New Zealand vessels have maintained in the Ross Sea and believed the key environmental threats came from IUU vessels. However, one NGO submitter said there were high levels of marine by-catch in the Ross Sea and two questioned New Zealand’s record of sustainable fishing within New Zealand waters. One research organisation said there was doubt about CCAMLR’s ability to manage the toothfish fishery as there was evidence of overfishing in parts of the Southern Ocean.
19. There were also differing views on IUU fishing, with some expressing the view that the presence of legitimate vessels is a deterrent to IUU and others suggesting that IUU fishing existed alongside legitimate fishing in some CCAMLR areas[1]. One submitter said that IUU fishing would be easier to detect if there was little or no legitimate fishing, and one expressed concern that CCAMLR is not proving effective at policing either IUU or breaches of regulations among legitimate vessels.
20. Other concerns included: a belief that advocacy for an assessed fishery would harm New Zealand’s credibility in international fora, especially when arguing for environmental protection measures; and a belief that development of an assessed fishery would encourage more nations to fish in the Ross Sea, leading to lower environmental standards, and reduced control of fishing.
21. Two research submitters said the framework must consider global warming and other environmental changes. One of those submitters presented evidence of rising Antarctic Peninsula temperatures, freshening of the Ross Sea, and acidification of the oceans as a result of higher atmospheric CO2 levels. The submitter referred to a study showing that higher ocean temperatures caused fish stocks to migrate significant distances towards the poles, which could threaten their survival. The submitter said these environmental changes must all be considered under the framework. The other submitter said little could be done about climate change except to observe its effects.
22. NGO and research organisation submitters commented that, as well as toothfish fishing, the framework will need to consider potential environmental effects from tourism, bioprospecting, and krill fishing. Two also mentioned the possibility of Japan seeking to hunt whales in Antarctic waters, and two NGOs mentioned possible environmental effects from scientific research. Two research organisations and one NGO said the framework has should take account of biosecurity risks such as hull fouling, which could introduce new organisms to the Ross Sea.
23. NIWA said the framework also needed to consider possible risks from land-based activities, the appropriateness of fishing methods with significant environmental impacts such as bottom trawling and dredging, the harsh conditions which could contribute to loss of gear which in turn could harm marine life.
24. Three NGO submitters questioned the appropriateness of the CCAMLR boundaries, saying they did not coincide with the boundaries of the Ross Sea with the Antarctic Convergence. One questioned the scope of the framework, pointing out that area 88 extends beyond the boundaries of the Ross Sea.
25. NGO submitters suggested: imposing a
ban on krill fishing now, before any commercial pressure is felt. One NGO
submitter suggested using IUCN, CITES or the International Whaling Commission
to protect the Antarctic environment.
26. Many
fishing industry and other business submitters expressed reservations about
ASPAs and ASMAs, suggesting that they were not an effective way of managing
fisheries, and that their establishment could create conflict with CCAMLR
measures. Some suggested that any controls on the fishery should be established
through CCAMLR rather than through Environmental Protocol measures. One
commented that designation of no-take ASPAs or ASMAs would inevitably affect
CCAMLR catch limits for the entire sea. Three fishing industry submitters
said that the fishery was closed for much of the year because of ice and
was therefore, in the words of one, “self-protecting”. One
said ASPAs could create “havens” in which IUU vessels fished
without the risk of detection. Another said establishing ASPAs would concentrate
fishing effort elsewhere, which could raise the risk of unprotected areas
being depleted. Some said ASPAs should be designated only in areas that
were not accessible to fishing vessels. 27. There
were some differences among the NGO and research organisation submitters
about the effectiveness of ASPAs and ASMAs. Most NGO and research submitters
strongly supported them and wanted a network of ASPAs and ASMAs set up
to cover the whole of the Ross Sea. These submitters emphasised the importance
of having ASPAs and ASMAs working in tandem, and of having a sound, research-based
process to determine where ASPAs should be. Some warned against taking
the “easy option” of establishing ASMAs where ASPAs should
be. However, two submitters questioned the effectiveness of ASPAs and ASMAs
at controlling fisheries. They said it may be more effective to use CCAMLR
measures either in parallel with or instead of ASPAs and ASMAs (note that
both of these submitters supported protection for the entire Sea). One
of these submitters questioned whether ASPAs and ASMAs could legally be
used to control activities normally controlled under CCAMLR, and raised
concerns about whether fishing nations that had not ratified the Environmental
Protocol might be able to ignore ASPA and ASMA no take areas. 28. Most
NGO and research submitters did not rule out the possibility that ASMAs
could be fished once protection mechanisms are in place. All fishing industry
and business submitters who expressed a view supported fishing within ASMAs. 29. Notwithstanding
a desire to protect the entire sea, and support for a rigorous process
to determine where ASPAs are established, many NGO and research submitters
expressed support for protected areas covering the whole Ross Sea Ice Shelf
waters shallower than 800m[2],
the area around the Balleny Islands (where there are significant numbers
of juvenile toothfish), the area around Scott Island, Victoria Land coastal
areas, McMurdo Sound, substantial representative open ocean areas and seamounts,
and a 10-15nm strip adjacent to the Antarctic and Ice Shelf coastline (an
important area for marine predators but not widely used by fisheries).
One fishing industry submitter expressed support for the Balleny Islands
proposal. 30. Most
fishing industry submitters said the following measures should apply to
any assessed fishery: 31. Several
industry submitters also expressed the view that catch limits under an
assessed fishery should be considerably higher than current catch limits,
and that they should be “closer to long-term sustainable levels”[3]. 32. Most
NGO and research submitters chose not to specify conditions that should
apply to an assessed fishery, instead restating their opposition to such
a move. Two research organisations said any assessed fishery must be managed
to take account of effects on the ecosystem as a whole. Two NGOs sought
conditions similar to those applying at present (eg catch and by-catch
limits). 33. Several
submitters emphasised references from New Zealand’s Statement of
Strategic Interest in Antarctica, from CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty,
and from other policy statements, to support their case for either greater
access to the toothfish fishery or greater protection. 34. Fishing
industry submitters emphasised a comment in Cabinet Minute (02) 16/9 to
the effect that the Statement of Strategic Interest was not intended to
affect direct or indirect interests deriving economic benefits from Antarctica.
One NGO submitter argued that this comment cannot have been intended to
override environmental protection. 35. NGO
submitters referred to the Statement of Strategic Interest’s commitment
to conserve intrinsic wilderness values, and one pointed out that the Statement
does not rule out a moratorium on fishing. Two submitters argued that the
development of an assessed fishery would be inconsistent with Article II
of CCAMLR which requires an ecosystem approach to be taken. 36. One
research organisation said the Antarctic Treaty’s reference to the
Antarctic as a “natural reserve” must be taken into account
in developing a framework. 37. One
submitter also referred to Labour Party 1999 policy committed to declaring
Antarctica a world park “free from mining and other threats to the
environment”. 38. Of
those industry/business submitters who expressed views, the key priority
was for research that provided the information needed to satisfy CCAMLR
that the toothfish fishery can be managed as an assessed fishery. This
included toothfish biology, toothfish stock structure, and the effects
of toothfish fishing on associated and dependent species. 39. Industry/business
submitters also expressed the view that any additional research demands
either be funded from the Public Good Science Fund or be funded by whoever
will benefit from the research. 40. Among
NGO submitters, six supported a general priority of better understanding
Ross Sea biodiversity and ecosystem. Two wanted research on the effects
of bioprospecting, identification of new species, and understanding unusual
or important habitats in the Sea. Of specific research proposals or projects,
three wanted to see a marine version of the Systematic Environmental-Geographic
Framework developed, two wanted input into the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring
Project, and one (in common with many fishing industry submitters) wanted
more research on toothfish biology and stock structure, on the effects
of toothfish fishing on dependent and associated species and on the ecosystem
as a whole. One wanted research on the relative lack of abundance of krill
in the Ross Sea. 42. In
total, 24 submissions were received from the fishing industry and other
businesses. Of those: [1] ASOC
said there was “not necessarily a clear seam” between the two. [2] This
suggestion was made by NIWA, which said that less toothfish fishing takes
place in this region. In oral submissions, Jack Fenaughty of Silvifish
Resources Ltd commented that fishing does not generally take place in shallower
waters but may do in years where there is a lot of ice in deeper waters. [3] For
example, see paragraph 93 below. [4] NIWA
said very little is known about this.Views
on protected areas
Assessed
fishery conditions
Meaning
of legal instruments and policy statements
Research
Fishing
industry and business submissions
back to Antarctica index page
Page last updated: Friday, 22 February 2008 13:46 NZDT
