THE PRESS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1980. lesson in fish quota

Press, 25 February 1980, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1980. lesson in fish quota

' 50 per cent reduction in the allo- ' /'Station of finfish in New Zealand’s ' 7,EX'CIH sive Economic Zone to the Soviet is intended to demonstrate to country that New Zealand abhors the invasion of Afghanistan. All the .foreign countries fishing in New Zea- ; land waters had their quotas reduced, but the reduction in the case of the Soviet Union was the most ~marked. The decision comes more or Jess at the same time as the European Economic Community, much to Britain’s disgust, has decided that it will resume sales of heavily subsidised European- butter to the Soviet Union. Whether it missed any sales at all while the ban was in force is a moot point. New Zealand had to ponder whether it would be prepared to increase its sales of butter to the Soviet Union if it were asked for more and thereby risk the ire of the Community, which might have accused New Zealand of taking a commercial advantage of the ban. The lifting of the ban has at least obviated such an accusation. The aim of the exercise is to single .out the Soviet Union. New Zealand must avoid singling itself out. Although the United States is limiting sales of grain to the Soviet Union, and Australia has said that it will not make up any shortfall in grain demand, much other trade between those two countries and the Soviet Union is continuing. Australia is. even going to sell rutile to the Soviet Union and rutile is a material that can be used for strategic purposes. New Zealand is locked into a dilemma on the situation. If, on the one hand, it wants to demonstrate clearly to its friends, the United States and Australia, that it is

doing something to bring home the point to the Soviet Union, then it would like to point to the reduction as more than token. But for its own important trading relationship with the Soviet Union—and other countries are looking after their own interests to a large extent—it would like to minimise the reduction. Yet to do that would be to defeat the very point that it is trying to make. The whole situation casts some doubt on trade embargoes as instruments of foreign policy in similar cases. All the fish allocations to foreign countries were going to be cut in any case because the expansion of the New Zealand fishing capacity meant that New Zealand can catch more fish within its own waters. The expansion has been a remarkable achievement on the part of the fishing industry. Problems remain. New Zealand can catch up to 100,000 tonnes of fish a year but can it sell it? The precise amount of fish thrown away, or stored, should be related to the expansion of the industry as well as the catching capacity. It is ridiculous if New Zealand gets itself into the position that the Government is obliged to reduce fishing quotas for foreigners because of the ability of New Zealanders to catch the fish while the industry is limited in its capacity to dispose of its fish profitably. The marketing advantages of joint ventures have attractions. Possibly that is why the joint ventures with the Soviet Union appear to have been left untouched while the allocation to Soviet fishermen has been reduced. This may do something to reduce the risk of retaliation from the Soviet Union.