Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Squid Fishery Management Company Limited Appellant, and Minister of Fisheries, First Respondent, and Chief Executive of Ministry of Fisheries, Second Respondent

País/Territorio
Nueva Zelandia
Tipo de la corte
Otros
Fecha
Jul 13, 2004
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Sede de la corte
Wellington
Juez
Hammond
William Young
ORegan
Número de referencia
CA39/04
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Pesca
Palabra clave
Capturas incidentales Manejo y conservación pesquera
Resumen
This case concerned fishing related mortality of the New Zealand sea lion associated with squid fishing activity. The sea lions were susceptible to being caught up in trawl nets as they feed on squid. The Ministry had imposed operational restrictions on the squid fishery intended to limit sea lion deaths. This had involved the fixing of an annual “maximum allowable limit onfishing-related mortality” (MALFiRM). The appellants challenged the Minister’s determination of the maximum allowable limit on fishing-related mortality for sea lions in the squid fishery. The court emphasized that the Minister was required to balance utilisation objectives and conservation values. This required utilisation to the extent that it was sustainable. The Minister had adopted a “precautionary approach”, meaning that he largely resolved uncertainties against utilisation and in favour of conservation. The court, however, was not aware of a simple method by which risk on the one hand could be balanced against utilisation advantages on the other. Therefore a precautionary approach to the required balancing exercise was open to the Minister. However, the court was of the view that the approach the Minister took did not address the extent to which utilisation of the squid resource conflicted with conservation of the sea lion population. In this respect, his approach was not consistent with the requirements of the legislation which authorised only measures which he considered “necessary” for avoiding, remedying or mitigating fishing effects on the sea lion population. Besides that, in fixing the MALFiRM the Minister had not taken into account the principle that decisions should be based on the best available evidence. Thus the court allowed the appeal and set-aside the Ministers’ plan.
Texto completo
jdo.justice.govt.nz

Referencias

Cita

Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar

Tratado | Multilateral | Montego Bay |

Palabra clave: Organización internacional, Generaciones futuras, Especies migratorias, Educación, Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos, Fondo marino profundo, Relaciones internacionales/cooperación, Corte/tribunal, Volumen admisible de captura, Propiedad de embarcaciones pesqueras, Contaminación marina (desde tierra), Temporadas, Responsabilidad/indemnización, Sistema de alerta rápida/sistema de intervención de emergencia, Plataforma continental, Puerto, Cumplimiento/aplicación, Soberanía, Alta mar, Inspección, Especies exóticas, Contrato/acuerdo, Recopilación de datos/informes, Aparejos de pesca/métodos de pesca, Navegación, Exploración, Política/planificación, Derecho de acceso, Capturas incidentales, Solución de controversias, Ordenación/conservación, Licencia de pesca, Zona marítima, Evaluación/manejo de riesgos, EIA, Contaminación marina (por buques), Contaminación marina, Investigación, Control de la contaminación, Mamíferos marinos, Infracciones/sanciones, Autorización/permiso, Registro, Monitoreo, Negocios/industria/corporaciones, Contaminación aerea de largo alcance, Transferencia de tecnología, Competencia jurisdiccional, Contaminación marina (vertimiento), Minería, Incremento del stock/repoblación, Manejo y conservación pesquera, Tarifas por licencias de pesca, ZEE-Zona Económica Exclusiva, Talla, Pesca marítima, Islas, Manejo de recursos marinos, Uso sostenible

Fuente: IUCN (ID: TRE-000753)