Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

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

Pays/Territoire
Nouvelle-Zélande
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Jul 13, 2004
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Siège de la cour
Wellington
Juge
Hammond
William Young
ORegan
Numéro de référence
CA39/04
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Pêche
Mot clé
Prises accessoires Gestion et conservation des pêches
Résumé
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.
Texte intégral
jdo.justice.govt.nz

Références

Cite

Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer

Traité | Multilatéral | Montego Bay |

Mot clé: Inspection, Fonds marins, Zone marine, Lutte contre la pollution, Procédures judiciaires/procédures administratives, Périodes, Organisation internationale, Redevances des licences de pêche, Responsabilité/indemnisation, Règlement des différends, Gestion des ressources marines, Pollution de la mer (immersion de déchets), Plateau continental, Re-empoissonnement/repeuplement, Espèces exotiques, Gestion/conservation, Gestion et conservation des pêches, Espèces migratoires, Prises accessoires, Recherche, Générations futures, Pollution de la mer, Utilisation durable, Engins de pêche/méthodes de pêche, Transfert de technologie, Collecte de données/déclarations, Pollution marine (imputable aux navires), Compétence juriductionnelle, Souveraineté, Monitorage, Propriété du navire, EIA, Autorisation/permis, Contrat/accord, Îles, Mise en application, Mammifères marins, ZEE-Zone Economique Exclusive, Cour/tribunaux, Droit d'accès, Pêche maritime, Politique/planification, Exploitation minière, Pollution de l'air à longue distance, Infractions/sanctions, Navigation, Enregistrement, Licence de pêche, Pollution marine (d'origine tellurique), Évaluation/gestion des risques, Volume admissible de captures, Exploration, Relations internationales/coopération, Port, Commerce/industrie/sociétés, Haute mer, Réseau d'alerte/intervention d'urgence, Taille, Éducation

Source: IUCN (ID: TRE-000753)