United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement Research Articles

Policy pathways to reduce disproportionate burdens in tuna fisheries

AbstractThe United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement requires states to recognise the special requirements of developing countries and to ensure that conservation and management measures do not place a disproportionate burden on developing countries. The aim of this article is to assess what policy arrangements are required to reduce the identified disproportionate burden. We developed a policy pathway that would allow members of tuna regional fisheries management organisations (tRFMOs) to strengthen their efforts to meet their duty to share conservation burdens more equitably. This pathway consists of policy options that were developed by using policy analysis, which is an innovative approach that provides actionable outcomes that can be used by tRFMO member states. Despite the global attention to reducing disproportionate conservation burdens, developing states are still suffering. The results of this article provide novel and timely policy options that have the potential to reduce the conservation burden carried by developing states.

The unintended consequences of exemptions in conservation and management measures for fisheries management

The duty to recognize the special requirements of developing states, and ensure that conservation and management measures avoid placing a disproportionate burden on them, has been firmly anchored in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Coastal developing states, particularly small island developing states (SIDS), are often economically and socially dependent on marine resources, and their development aspirations have been recognized by the international community. Ideally, members of regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) will meet their duty to avoid placing a disproportionate conservation burden on SIDS by designing and agreeing upon conservation and management measures that are equitable in terms of both their ease of implementation and their substantive impact on each participating state, such as through the equitable allocation of fishing opportunities. Where RFMOs are unable to adopt equitable measures, they may rely on the use of exemptions from conservation and management measures for developing states as a second-best alternative. However, exemptions have the potential to threaten the sustainability of the respective target stocks by creating loopholes in catch and effort limits. They can also undermine the scarcity value created by strong catch and effort limits, which can generate higher access fees for SIDS. In this paper, we analysed the conservation and management measures of RFMOs that include exemptions from catch, effort and capacity limits and found that they are used most commonly in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. We argue that the use of exemptions due to the failure of RFMOs to adopt equitable allocation frameworks has the potential to negatively impact marine resources and their development opportunities. Instead, alternatives, such as equitable allocations of science-based catch and effort limits, transferability and phased adjustments, should be developed.

Enhancing cooperative responses by regional fisheries management organisations to climate-driven redistribution of tropical Pacific tuna stocks

Climate change is predicted to alter the distributions of tropical tuna stocks in the Pacific Ocean. Recent modelling projects significant future shifts in tuna biomass from west to east, and from national jurisdictions to high seas areas. As the distributions of these stocks change, the relevant regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs)—the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)—will need to develop an expanded framework for cooperation and collaboration to fulfil their conservation and management responsibilities under international law. The key elements of a possible expanded framework for cooperation can be developed, and fundamental areas for collaboration identified, by applying and adapting principles established in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, and the constituent instruments of the RFMOs themselves. Our analysis reveals a wide range of important issues requiring cooperation, and three clear priorities. First, a formal mechanism for cooperation is needed to enable effective and efficient decision-making and action by the two RFMOs on key issues. Second, further cooperation is required in scientific research and modelling to better understand the biology and distributions of Pacific tuna stocks and how they will respond to climate change, and to inform stock assessments and harvest strategies. Third, the RFMOs must cooperate to define appropriate limits on fishing for each stock in a way that ensures they are compatible across the two organisations, taking into account their different members and management regimes.

Maritime Dispute Settlement Law towards Sustainable Fishery Governance: The Politics over Marine Spaces vs. Audacity of Applicable International Law

The present article discusses and analyses the role and contribution of International Maritime Dispute Settlement Bodies in sustainable fishery governance. From a maritime dispute settlement perspective, the discussion on preserving marine biodiversity, including fisheries and ecosystems, is unprecedented. However, dispute settlement impacts on marine biodiversity require serious attention from the viewpoint of effective implementation of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, International Environmental Law, and United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea. ‘Applicable law’ as primary contention, which could be utilised to preserve marine biodiversity, is preferably employed for ‘ship release’ and ‘delimitation’ issues under dispute settlement mechanisms. Perhaps, the political and legal obstacles in interpreting the ‘law of the sea’ are one area of critique, and the optional dispute settlement mechanism is another. All these significant issues are discussed to develop a rational approach utilising ‘applicable law’ to preserve marine biodiversity and develop sustainable fishery governance. The result will certainly help build a better understanding of the ‘applicable law’ jurisdiction that may be utilised to ensure the sustainability of marine biodiversity.

Understanding Barriers in Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Allocation Negotiations on Fishing Opportunities

Tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) have been given an arduous mandate under the legal framework of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Member states with different interests and objectives are required to cooperate and collaborate on the conservation and management of tuna and tuna-like species, which includes the allocation of fishing opportunities. It is well understood that the main RFMO allocation disagreements are the inability to agree on a total allowable catch, the lack of willingness to accept new members, disagreement on who should bear the conservation burden, and non-compliance with national allocations owning to perceived inequities. Addressing these elements is crucial for any organization if it is to sustain its credibility stability and legitimacy. This paper identifies additional barriers facing an equitable allocation process at the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). These challenges are multi-faceted and include institutional, political, and scientific barriers in the ongoing allocation negotiations, and further inhibit effective negotiation and resolution adoption as a whole. After almost 10 years of negotiations, the process has progressed little, and without agreement on these barriers it will be a challenge to adopt a stable systematic allocation process.

Beyond rhetoric: navigating the conceptual tangle towards effective implementation of the ecosystem approach to oceans management

The ecosystem approach is widely considered the best paradigm for environmental management and oceans management. With such ample endorsement, one could expect that the concept has an unambiguous definition and that its implications for management are clear. That is not the case. The concept has provoked an extensive academic and practical debate over the last 30 years. Early work focused on debates about the concept of the ecosystem approach, its guiding principles, and consistent use of terminology. As those questions were progressively clarified, the work has focused on its implementation. This paper provides a three-part literature review of these developments. The first part analyzes the current understanding of the ecosystem approach, its consensual elements or principles, the differing terminology coined in the literature, and three sources of persisting confusion around the concept. The paper addresses in particular one of those sources of confusion: the goal of the ecosystem approach. The second part focuses on implementation frameworks and strategies, with particular focus on objective-based and adaptive management frameworks and the pivotal role of ecosystem indicators in understanding, assessing, and managing ecosystems. The third part reviews the recognition of ecosystems and the ecosystem approach in international law, including an analysis of nonbinding instruments, treaty law (with particular reference to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, and the Convention on Biological Diversity), and the practical regional implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries and oceans management. The literature review demonstrates that, despite some persisting differing interpretations, the ecosystem approach has moved from the theory of aspirational discourse to the practice of implementation. It has proven successful in enhancing the understanding of ecosystems’ structure, function, and dynamics; increasing awareness of environmental problems; and developing policy and research agendas and priorities. However, the jury is still out in relation to its capacity to influence human behavior through direct management actions. Many factors concur to this limitation, but two stand out: the inadequacy of traditional regulatory frameworks and institutional arrangements to capture the complexity, uncertainty, and variability of ecosystems; and the reluctance of the international community to embrace a global, comprehensive, and substantive international obligation that effectively protects the ecological systems on which life on Earth depends.

Research into fisheries equity and fairness—addressing conservation burden concerns in transboundary fisheries

Conservation and management of transboundary fisheries must account for diverse national interests while adopting compromises necessary to develop and implement robust conservation and management measures. The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement requires states to ensure that conservation and management measures for straddling and highly migratory fisheries do not transfer a disproportionate burden of conservation action onto developing states. However, fulfilling this obligation in transboundary fisheries is undermined by the lack of agreed transparent frameworks for assessing the impact of alternative conservation and management measures, and distributive decision making processes for adopting measures that meet scientific and equity obligations. A new informal and multi-disciplinary research partnership, the Fisheries Equity Research Network, has been established to encourage international research into the equitable distribution of conservation limits in trans-boundary oceanic fisheries. The Fisheries Equity Research Network will research transparent and equitable rules and frameworks for assessing and distributing conservation burdens in transboundary fisheries.

Cooperation and compliance control in areas beyond national jurisdiction

Past decades have shown a constant increase in the number of international agreements regulating marine areas. Environmental changes as well as technological developments resulting in an increased use of oceans ensure the need for further governance in the future of high seas. At the same time, compliance by States with international obligations remains a considerable challenge in international law. In particular, regulations governing areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) are at risk of not being obeyed due to factual challenges posed to the control of high seas territories and the (legal) limits of the law of the sea. This article evaluates a stronger cooperation between States through the incorporation of compliance control systems in agreements regulating ABNJ in order to enhance compliance by States. For this purpose, provisions on compliance control measures which have already been established in two agreements regulating ABNJ, namely the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, are analyzed. It is argued that the incorporation of compliance control elements into agreements regulating ABNJ is a promising avenue to secure improved compliance among States Parties and further implementation of this approach is recommended.

Global fisheries governance beyond the State: unraveling the effectiveness of the Marine Stewardship Council

Marine ecosystems are increasingly under pressure. Despite commitments by governments and intergovernmental organizations, such as the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement and the 1995 Food and Agriculture Organisation Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Practices, the depletion of marine resources has intensified over the past 40 years. In this context, a number of non-state market-based governance schemes have emerged that attempt to mitigate the ongoing marine crisis through certifying sustainable fisheries. In this article, we investigate the effects of one of the most prominent private organizations in global fisheries governance, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Specifically, we evaluate the role of the MSC in addressing the worldwide decline in fish stocks and examine broader political and socio-economic effects that are often associated with the emergence and implementation of private rules and standards. With this analysis, we aim to unravel the conditions under which the MSC can contribute to more sustainable and equitable fisheries management at regional and global levels.

The Precautionary approach to fisheries management: How this is taken into account by Tuna regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs)

For several decades it has been acknowledged that there is an urgent need for new approaches to fisheries management, embracing conservation and environmental considerations. The voluntary Code of Conduct on Responsible Fishing and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement provide the formal basis for the Precautionary Approach to fisheries management. Some tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organisations such as the WCPFC and IATTC make explicit mention of these codes in their conventions, whilst others, whose conventions do not explicitly address the Precautionary Approach, are searching for ways in which to take these codes into consideration. In practical terms, the scientific obligations to Precautionary Approaches are to determine the status of the stock(s) relative to limit and target reference points, to predict outcomes of management alternatives for reaching the targets and avoiding the limits, and to characterise the uncertainty in both cases. A convenient framework to conduct management evaluations is through the use of harvest control rules, for which managers agree on specific management actions under their control which are evoked according to levels of stock status relative to predefined reference points. These pre-agreed management actions are then simulated for a range of scenarios. This paper presents the ways in which tuna RFMOs are currently incorporating the precautionary approach in their fisheries management as well as suggestions for possible best practice. ► A review of the meaning and implications of the PA to fisheries management is conducted. ► The application of the PA within tRFMOs is comprehensively investigated and described. ► The PA as applied by tRFMOs is compared with its application in non-tuna RFMOs. ► Problems with applying the precautionary approach are highlighted. ► Suggestions and recommendations are made regarding best practice for applying the PA.

Fisheries Data and the Law of the Sea Convention

Abstract This article outlines the provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) concerning the collection and exchange of fisheries data. It also examines how the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement has substantially strengthened the provisions of the LOSC in this area. The paper considers briefly the specific problems raised by the attempt to attribute a nationality to catch data, and the related problem of determining where the responsibility lies for reporting data in chartering arrangements.

Overview, roles, and performance of the North East Atlantic fisheries commission (NEAFC)

Abstract According to the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks are to be managed by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), consisting of coastal states and relevant Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFNs). In the North East Atlantic there are several straddling stocks, including herring, mackerel, blue whiting, redfish and numerous deep sea stocks that are exploited both within coastal states’ 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zones and on the high seas. Management of such stocks poses special management problems. In this area, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) represents the relevant RFMO. So far the literature has devoted little attention to RFMOs in general and to NEAFC in particular. The purpose of this report is, first, to provide an overview of the organisation, structure, and objectives of NEAFC and, second, to consider its performance with regard to resource management.

A Voice for the Fish? Climate Change Litigation and Potential Causes of Action for Impacts under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement

Given the ineffectiveness of institutional responses to climate change at the international level, as well as inadequate domestic responses, States and NGOs have begun to explore potential causes of action under judicial and quasi-judicial fora. This article looks at a potential cause of action under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement.

ICCAT: Managing or Documenting?

AbstractThe International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is one of the oldest regional fisheries management organizations in the business of providing stewardship to the management of high-seas fish stocks. The Commission came into force in 1969 with eight parties and today consists of 45 contracting parties. Notwithstanding nearly 40 years of experience, this organization is also confronted with the problems of over-exploitation; over-capacity; illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing; lack of adequate scientific information; and the continued decline in important high-seas fish stocks.Despite the moribund state of fish stocks in the ICCAT convention area, the organization has made significant progress with respect to the collection and analysis of fisheries information, recommendations to its parties and the dissemination of this information, all key parts of its broader objective. Nonetheless, the organization has failed to make substantial progress with regard to translating a good analysis and documenting process to the effective conservation of tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic. That is, the organization has failed to “close the loop” in management. The question therefore becomes, is the ICCAT merely functioning as a “documenting” organization rather than a “management” organization? This study examines the current state of fisheries stocks in the convention area, the extent to which the Commission is meeting its own mandate, and the extent to which the management principles of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement are being followed by ICCAT.

PENINDAKAN ILLEGAL FISHING DAN PERJANJIAN BILATERAL BIDANG PERIKANAN DENGAN NEGARA TETANGGA

Indonesia is the biggest maritim state in the world as two third of its area are ocean. In order to maximized its fisheries products, Indonesia has some policies regarding to the management of its waters, including eradicating illegal logging and reforming bilateral agreements with some neighbor countries. This policies, however, appear to be not yet optimal. The government in 1985 has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 with the Act 17/1985. However, up to now, Indonesia has not ratified yet the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement 1995 and the 1993 Compliance Agreement as the continued arrangements of UNCLOS 1982. Indonesia should conduct such ratification in order to optimize the Indonesian fisheries industry in which its natural resources, whether living or non-living can be explored and exploited. This is crucial as fisheries industries can provide fish stock as alternative healthy food for the people in Indonesia.

A Voice for the Fish? Climate Change Litigation and Potential Causes of Action for Impacts under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement

The seas—all the seas—cry for regulation as a veritable res communis omnium.2 Louis Henkin, Arctic Anti-Pollution: Does Canada Make—or Break—International Law? 65 AJIL 131, 136 (1971).

Climate variability and tropical tuna: Management challenges for highly migratory fish stocks

Abstract The 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement facilitates the creation of regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs) to govern harvests of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. The stability and success of these organizations will depend, in part, on how effectively they can maintain member nations’ incentives to cooperate despite the uncertainties and shifting opportunities that may result from climate-driven changes in the productivity, migratory behavior, or catchability of the fish stocks governed by the RFMO. Such climatic impacts may intensify incentives for opportunism, and create other management challenges for the RFMOs now governing tropical tuna fisheries in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Moving from Input Controls to Output Controls Using the Partnership Approach in Australia's Southern Shark Fishery

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) maintains a firm commitment to managing Federal (Commonwealth) fisheries resources for the benefit of the community as a whole. The AFMA model centres around a partnership approach in which a wide range of stakeholders are actively involved in the process of developing and implementing fisheries management arrangements for Commonwealth fisheries. Central to AFMA's partnership approach is the establishment and operation of Management Advisory Committees and Fisheries Assessment Groups for each major fishery managed by AFMA. AFMA successfully moved the Southern Shark Fishery from input controls to output controls over a period of 5 years. AFMA achieved this by using the partnership approach with the Southern Shark Fishery Management Advisory Committee (SharkMAC) and the Southern Shark Fishery Assessment Group (SharkFAG). In the two year period since output controls were introduced on 1 January 2001 the industry has undergone considerable change. Some fishers are finding it difficult to operate in the current environment. Industry and AFMA must continue to work together under the partnership approach to ensure the school shark stocks are rebuilt and environmental standards are maintained and further improved to ensure the long-term sustainability of the fishery. The Structure of Australian Fisheries Australian fisheries are essentially managed by the Federal government, whose jurisdiction usually extends from 3 nautical miles from the coastline out to 200 nautical miles and more recently with the ratification of United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement onto the high seas for its flagged State vessels. State government fisheries agencies manage inshore and offshore fisheries out to 3 nautical miles. In cases where single stock, area or fishing method management is required, the Federal and State governments generally reach agreement on a single jurisdiction having responsibility for a fishery through an Offshore Constitutional Settlement Arrangement.

Some Suggestions Towards Better Implementation of the United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks of 1995

AbstractIn light of the upcoming Conference to review implementation of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), this article: (1) reviews the main contribution of UNFSA to high seas fisheries governance; (2) notes issues that have arisen regarding implementation of UNFSA; and (3) suggests ways these might be addressed. Though the main problems pertain to inadequate implementation of the provisions of UNFSA, the article also addresses two areas that require further attention at the global level within the framework of UNFSA. The first involves discrete high seas fish stocks, particularly deep sea fish stocks and the impacts of destructive fishing practices. The second is the absence within RFMOs of a mechanism for allocation of allowable catches or levels that also takes conservation interests into consideration together with the economic and social interests of states. Specific recommendations for action are summarised in Annex II.

Implementing high seas biodiversity conservation: global geopolitical considerations

Abstract This article will consider the broad geopolitical considerations in measures towards biodiversity conservation and governance of high seas areas. Traditionally, international law has provided for jurisdiction based upon flag State in high seas areas, and States have shown themselves reluctant to depart from this model. International organisations with responsibility for high seas living resource management have proven, in many cases, to be of limited utility in the sustainable management of high seas resources. This traditional norm of flag State jurisdiction, while still dominant, is now being joined by the use of supra-national management in the context of regional fisheries organisations under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Part of the reason for this limited effectiveness is the focus of individual States on national interest, which may undermine international cooperation. The paper explores what mechanisms exist within international law that would permit a more effective management of high seas biodiversity conservation, and how these may be used to combat the erosion of the effectiveness of measures by individual State interests. Recognition of geopolitical factors that undermine cooperation in biodiversity conservation, and active efforts to address these matters, will prove essential in the establishment of a successful regime for high seas areas.