Demersal Fishing in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations

James B Bell,Andrew Kenny,Elena Guijarro-Garcia

doi:10.3389/fmars.2019.00596

Abstract

In areas beyond national jurisdiction, there are ten regional fisheries bodies (RFBs) responsible for the management of bottom fisheries (ABNJ). Eight of these organisations are further termed ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’ (RFMOs) and have a legal mandate to regulate the sustainable use of marine living resources on the high seas. The remaining two, both in the equatorial Atlantic, are limited to advisory roles. Here we present comparisons between these organisations’ management of deep-water demersal fisheries, with particular respect to how they have respectively adopted the suite of available measures for the mitigation of significant adverse impacts (SAIs) upon vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs). Each organisation was scored against 99 performance criteria that either related to their capacity to implement management measures (‘Capacity’); the number and effectiveness of measures they have implemented (‘Action’); and the intensity and spatial extent of the activities they regulate (‘Need’). For most organisations, action and need scores were proportional, as the more actions an organisation takes to reduce risk to VMEs, the more it reduces the scope for improvement. However, comparisons between capacity and action scores indicate that, in some organisations, there remain several aspects of VME impact mitigation that could be improved. In the case of RFBs, or recently established RFMOs, capacity gaps are still considerable, suggesting that these organisations receive additional scientific, technical, legal, and financial support, to ensure that they are able to meet current and future objectives. Further, there is little evidence of significant cooperation between adjacent or overlapping organisations in the development and application of conservation measures, highlighting the need for an agreement on the management of biodiversity, rather than sectors, in ABNJ.

Highlights

Fishing activities in the majority of the world’s oceans are subject to oversight by relatively few organizations
All the organizations, have implemented some combination of the following precautionary or reactive measures to limit or avoid the risk of significant adverse impact (SAI) upon vulnerable marine ecosystems (VME): (1) Fishery closed areas; (2) Fishing areas closed to specific gears; (3) Exploratory fishing rules, whereby fishing in new areas is subject to increased scrutiny; and (4) Encounter rules, through which vessels are expected to report instances of VME species bycatch exceeding a given threshold and cease fishing within a stated distance of the last fishing event
The proportion of area closed to some or all kinds of fishing gears ranged between 0% in South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA) and South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), to 77.4% in General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)

Summary

Introduction

Fishing activities in the majority of the world’s oceans are subject to oversight by relatively few organizations. Both those of commercial value or otherwise, that inhabit the deep-sea, display life history traits adapted to slow-growth and high longevity/late maturation (Cailliet et al, 2001), which markedly increases their vulnerability to direct exploitation or other disturbances. Owing to these vulnerabilities, deep-sea fisheries have often been characterized by short periods of high-intensity fishing that can quickly reduce fish stocks below economic levels. We consider how each organization has managed impacts that can arise from deep-water fisheries (deeper than 400 m; Mangi et al, 2016)

Methods

Results

Conclusion