Log in

You will be redirected to IUCN Accounts to input your credentials. After log in you will be redirected back to this site.

Rest assured your personal data resides with IUCN and IUCN only. For more information please review our Data policy.

WCC 2020 Res 055 - Activity Report

Submitted by Catherine.Wallace on Fri, 06/16/2023 - 10:29
General Information
Guidance to identify industrial fishing incompatible with protected areas
IUCN Constituent: 
Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand
IUCN Constituent type: 
IUCN Member
Period covered: 
2022
Geographic scope: 
Oceania
Pacific Ocean
Country/Territory: 
New Zealand
In implementing this Resolution your organization has worked/consulted with...
Other non-IUCN related organisations: 
New Zealand government agencies, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, various others
Implementation
Indicate and briefly describe any actions that have been carried out to implement this Resolution: 
ActionDescriptionStatus
Policy influencing/advocacyECO with others including iwi and hapu(Maori tribes and subtribes) continues to press for genuine MPAS and for the New Zealand fishing industry and Ministry to stop pretending that Bogus Protected Areas qualify as marine protected areas.On-going
Scientific/technical activitiesThe Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, ECO, has pressed in several jurisdictions and often in concert with other ENGOs, pressed for the conservation purpose of MPAs and OECMs to be a key criterion and focus of protected areas. In particular we have pressed for an end to bottom trawling on seamounts and associated features, and vulnerable marine ecosystems. We have raised the issue in both policy and in scientific fora in New Zealand and in the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management areas and else where. We have called for the New Zealand "Benthic Protected Areas" to be recognised as Bogus Protected areas since they were established on the initiative of the industrial fishing interests in New Zealand as a means of avoiding conservation-inspired protected areas, not for the purpose of conservation.On-going
Please report on the result /achievement of the actions taken: 
For a period, with the authority of the IUCN MPA classifications and the New Zealand Department of Conservation, we got a pause in the NZ government claiming that BPAs counted as MPAs, but we keep finding that the claims resurface.
What challenges have you encountered in implementing this Resolution and what measures have you taken to overcome them?: 
ECO is entirely voluntary so our capacity is stretched. The main problems is that disinformation that equates so-called Benthic Protected Areas with genuine MPAs that is spread from the New Zealand fishing industry and at times the Ministry of Primary Industries is widely circulated but not often recognised or rebutted as the fake claims they are.
Identify and briefly describe what future actions are planned for the implementation of this Resolution: 
Future ActionDescription
Policy influencing/advocacyWe will continue to challenge the false claims and to draw attention to the damage that industrial fishing does, and how it should not be tolerated in MPAs. Industrial fishing is hugely influential but we will continue to call out the false claims and we will continue to press for an end to damaging mobile fishing methods.