The main change in strategy of utilization of marine resources brought about by the UN Convention came from the explicit recognition, under the Convention, that a coastal State has exclusive rights to use the resources within its EEZ. The main provisions on the management of living marine resources within EEZ's are spelled out in Part V (See Annex IV), which also includes provisions relating to straddling stocks, highly migratory species, marine mammals, and anadromous and catadromous species. Extracts are also given in Annex IV of this document, for ready reference, from the most widely quoted provisions of Part VII, which deals with the resources of the high seas and from Part IX on the provisions relating to enclosed or semi-enclosed seas. For a listing of other section headings in the Convention that relate to the marine environment and research, the reader should consult in full UN (1983).
Clearly, the all-embracing nature of the 1982 Convention left many areas to be further developed subsequently. The main objective of the Convention was clearly to provide for a management regime that gave coastal States responsibility for the wellbeing of, and benefits from, the resources lying immediately offshore from their coasts. A complicating issue here that was addressed by the Convention, but not fully developed, related to specifying the management approaches and techniques to use in the case of shared and straddling stocks.
Although marine fish stocks do not recognize maritime boundaries, it was presumed, without being specifically stated, that exploitation of a shared stock will be carried out by two or more States, each within its own EEZ, and the Convention suggests a responsibility to consult in these cases, without entering into technical details on the possible framework for such a consultative body and its likely work programme. How the explicit or implicit provisions of the Convention can be reconciled in practice with the technical factors that ensure resource conservation in the case of shared stocks lying across, or moving between, two or more EEZs, was not fully resolved.
Several examples of the unresolved questions that remained in practice were discussed in Gulland (1980) and Caddy (1982). These are as follows:
An adult resource may be independently managed within two separate jurisdictions without mixing. The planktonic larvae may, however, arrive by oceanic drift from a spawning area in a third jurisdiction, “upstream” from the other two with respect to oceanic current patterns. A variety of human activities close to this spawning area will eventually affect production within all three jurisdictions.
Fish migrating along an archipelago will be fished in turn in each successive jurisdiction, such that the catch in each is probably conditioned by catches in the island EEZs “upstream”. (The management implications will not be the same, however, if the species migrates across the archipelago, passing through different EEZs simultaneously (e.g. Mahon, 1987).
A fish stock when aggregating to spawn in a restricted area in EEZ (1) may be highly available to capture as breeding adults, but much less so when widely dispersed during feeding in EEZ (2). The feasibility of overfishing, the needs and costs of management, and the vulnerability to pollution, are all higher within the former jurisdiction. Whether this should affect the relative shares from an overall TAC (Total Allowable Catch) is a question that needs to be resolved in particualar cases.
A nursery area for shrimp may lie within a marshland in EEZ(1), but the adults may be mostly fishable in deeper water within EEZ(2). If national fleets are confined to their respective EEZs, the overall yield, consisting in part of juvenile shrimp from EEZ(1), will be much below its potential if all the harvesting could have been carried out in EEZ(2). In the case of refusal of access to EEZ(2) in exchange for banning juvenile fisheries in the zone, coastal State (1) may either: (a) overfish the small inshore shrimp; or (b) cede to pressures to convert the shrimp nursery area to rice culture, for example. The consequent run-off of agricultural chemicals into the estuary may then disastrously affect the stock in both EEZs.
Implicit in the above examples is the idea that coastal States within whose EEZs lie areas of particular vulnerability have special responsibility to avoid overfishing and environmental impacts, and often have unusually favourable fishing opportunities. In some respects, this situation resembles that which led to the drafting and adoption of Article 66 of the Convention, governing anadromous stocks. The ownership or proper stewardship of critical habitats for the wellbeing of a marine resource has a similar associated management responsibility, but under current international agreements this additional responsbility does not necessarily imply a right to a larger share in the overall yield from the stock.
There appears to be a need to define in practice how the Convention's provisions on shared responsibility for minimizing environmental impacts on resources that are not exclusive to one country, could be applied. The costs of pollution abatement in both cases may not be equally shared, but presumably these costs should be considered when discussing utilization and sharing of the resource.
The question of how to go about setting the total allowable catch and determining surpluses has in fact been treated differently by many countries. A system of allocation of TACs was not specified by the Convention; nor was a specific system of sharing surveillance considered, yet both are essential for successful implementation. One early interpretation was that “there is a cake of some determined size (the “allowable catch”) which is then sliced up. The coastal State then takes the slice it wants (determined by its capacity), and the other slices (the surplus) are then theoretically available to be allocated to other States”. This interpretation is not fully accepted by all States, since the taking of a surplus, or not, affects the catch rate and hence the profitability of the national fleet, and may also affect national export prospects.
As noted earlier, the probability of stock stability is also likely to be affected with this sharing arrangement, especially if the total harvest, including surplus, was calculated according to the MSY criterion. Thus, many States have followed the criterion set out in Article 61(2), which states that the coastal State “taking into account the best scientific advice available to it, shall ensure through proper conservation and mangement measures that the maintenance of the living resources in the exlusive economic zone is not endangered by over-exploitation”. This does not explicitly require MSY harvesting and, in fact, Article 61(3), states that “Such measures shall also be designed to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield”, and specifically qualifies this by citing the need to take into consideration environmental, socio-economic needs, and the requirements of coastal communities, as well as “special needs” in the case of developing countries.
All of these considerations in fact provide ample scope to justify fishing at levels below that providing MSY and, incidentally, rarely result in à surplus being declared. As was discussed earlier, the biological rationale for these lower levels of resource exploitation appears to be justified by past experience in resource management using the MSY benchmark (see Caddy and Mahon, 1995).
The Convention refers to anadromous and catadromous species (Articles 66 and 67) and to the need to preserve rare and fragile ecosystems as well as the resource habitat (Article 194), to avoid land-based pollution (Article 207), and to jointly establish rules, standards, practices and procedures for controlling the release of toxic, harmful or noxious substances, by water or through the atmosphere, from vessels, from sea bed mining and dumping. Specific provisions for estuarine conservation apparently remain to be developed however. Thus, there is currently no international Convention that specifies that the “customary” (seasonal) amounts of freshwater discharge, containing the “customary” levels of nutrient, silt and other substances that need to be maintained if the health of an estuary, its fauna and resources, is to be assured.
In spite of the application of many of the Articles of the Convention, fishing fleets have grown appreciably between 1980 and 1989. Although some fisheries are still operating profitably, on average vessel acquisition and operating costs exceed considerably their income from fishing (FAO 1992e). This over-investment is now seriously threatening the sustainability of the fishery resources (FAO 1993g).
It would be presumptious here to attempt an analysis of the major stepping stones that have occured internationally in the steady movement towards a rational mangement regime for living marine resources since the 1982 Convention was negotiated. It was felt however that it would be useful to provide readers with some extracts from the relevant International agreements in this field, which could be compared with the broad review of the scientific literature provided in this document. Although the extracts in Annexes IV to VII should not be read in isolation from the full texts, these latter are not readily assembled in one place, and hence it may be useful to have some of the key issues relating to marine resource conservation and management assembled in one place in a readily accessible form.
This Conference, held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, adopted a Programme of Action whose underlying principles are given in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, some extracts of which are given in Annex VI. The application of these principles in a proposed programme of work with technical justifications, is covered by Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992); a brief description of which is given here, with reference to some key excerpts in Annex VII. The Conference also adopted two Conventions: one on biodiversity and another on global climate change. Both were opened for signature at the Conference.
Regarding fisheries, Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 is the most relevant; its title is Protection of the Oceans, All Kinds of Seas, Including Enclosed and Semi-Enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas and the Protection, Rational Use and Development of Their Living Resources (UNCED op. cit.). Some other chapters of Agenda 21 are also of relevance to fisheries, but the reader is referred to UNCED 1992 for details.
Chapter 17 contains seven programmes of action; these are summarized in FAO 1993f. From the point of view of fisheries, the principles established by the Conference most relevant to fisheries are also summarized in the afore-mentioned document). These Programmes of Action and their principal objectives are:
Integrated Management and Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine Areas, Including Exclusive Economic Zones.
The main objective of this Programme is to promote Integrated Coastal Area Management in areas under the national jurisdiction of coastal States.
Marine Environmental Protection.
The main objective of this Programme is to prevent, reduce and control degradation of the marine environment from sea-based as well as land-based sources so as to maintain and improve the life-support and productive capacities. (In this, it follows very closely the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and takes into account the coastal States' policies, priorities and resources).
Sustainable Use and Conservation of Marine Living Resources of the High Seas.
The objective of this Programme is to pursue the commitment of States to conserve and to use high-seas resources on a sustainable basis, and to assist developing countries in this endeavour. However, owing to the failure, in Rio, to reach a consensus on some of the issues of conservation and management of high seas resources, States were called on to, inter alia, convene an inter-governmental conference on straddling stocks and highly migratory species, under UN auspices.
Sustainable Use and Conservation of Marine Living Resources under National Jurisdiction.
The main objective of this Programme are the restoration of resources to levels that would allow the maximum sustainable yield to be taken; protection of endangered species; and the taking into account of the interests of local communities and small-scale fisheries.
Addressing Critical Uncertainties for the Management of the Marine Environment and Climate Change.
The main objectives of this Programme are: to improve the capacity of coastal States to deal with the consequences of climate change; to improve capacity to forecast conditions and effects, in coastal areas, in respect of changes in water temperature, sea level, river discharge, atmospheric ozone concentration etc.; and to promote relevant research.
Strengthening International, Including Regional, Cooperation and Coordination.
The main objectives of this Programme are: to better integrate sectorial activities; to promote effective information exchange and inter-governmental review of environment and development issues; and to promote effective operation of co-ordination mechanisms for the relevant components of the UN system and of international development bodies.
Sustainable Development of Small Islands.
Because of the very high ratio of EEZ to land area, small islands are exceptionally dependent on their marine resources, hence on their sustainable development; therefore, the primary objective of this Programme is to assist small island States to develop their marine resources on such a basis, with particular attention also to the related socio-economic development and the maintenance of biological diversity.
Many of the needs identified by the Rio Conference, and embodied in Agenda 21 with respect to fisheries, were foreseen in the FAO World Conference on Fishery Management and Development (FAO, 1984, 1986b). The FAO Department of Fisheries has, in effect, already been addressing many of the relevant recommendation of UNCED; moreover, most of these needs have been discussed in the present document.
The many suggestions for FAO action given in FAO (1993g) were also approved by the FAO Committee on Fisheries at its twentieth session (Rome, March 1993). These and other suggestions for action have been laid out in sections 2.1.5, 2.2.5, 2.3.4, 2.4.4, 2.5.3, 2.6.1, on the specific ecological provinces addressed in the present document, and 7.6, on the general questions of the sustainable development of fisheries.
The texts of the third and fourth of the above Programmes are given in Annex VII, largely to illustrate the style and practical approach adopted in Agenda 21.
Fisheries have been regulated in various ways for centuries and, as fleets increased in mobility, international collaboration became necessary to try to ensure the sustainability of the yield from shared stocks. The fact that many resources and some areas fall outside EEZs, and also outside the geographic area and terms of reference of regional Commissions, is a serious cause for concern.
A number of international organizations are involved with human activities in the oceanic environment, and the following specific programmes of the United Nations, its specialized agencies, and other key players are mentioned in more detail in Annex III, and their acronyms given in Annex II. One of the roles of FAO with respect to marine resource use has been to support the operation of a number of fisheries commissions, especially in developing areas of the world. Brief descriptions of the main FAO Fisheries Commissions are given in Annex III under the FAO heading. One of the roles of an international Organization is to provide a focal point for international agreement on issues of concern to its member countries. Such a role was fulfilled by FAO in assisting with organization of the International Conference for Responsible Fisheries in Cancún, Mexico, 6–9 May 1992. This resulted in the Cancún Declaration , and initiated the concept of “responsible fishing” now being pursued by member countries of FAO in discussions on a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The Cancún Declaration took into account not only the provisions of the 1982 convention and the 1984 FAO World Conference on Fisheries Management and Development, but also the deliberations of UNCED. Extracts from the Cancun Declaration are given in Annex V.
The management of some key resources of the world's oceans are covered by the deliberations of fishery management bodies, whose role is particularly important when these are shared or straddling stocks. Some resources managed by such commissions, as for tuna or whales, may be harvested on the high seas and pose major problems of monitoring and control. The UN General Assembly has recently expressed its concern over certain high-seas fishery issues, and it is clear that given the regional and species-specific nature of most fishery commissions, they inevitably lack a certain cohesion in dealing with inter-ocean and intra-ocean problems.
The mechanisms proposed under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea for the management of living marine resources assign a key role to regional fishery commissions, particularly in the case of stocks straddling, or moving between, two or more EEZs, or straddling, or moving between EEZs and international waters. To what extent can fishery commissions, as currently constituted (see section 7.5), fulfil this mandate?
The first consideration relates to their converage. As already explained, there are commissions whose principal mandate is restricted to one or a limited group of species. These species-specific commissions play a key role with respect to conservation of what are often apical or keystone predators, particularly vulnerable to exploitation by man.
Savini (1991) and Marashi (1993) have provided more detail on world fishery commissions, but in a brief summary, we will consider first those commissions that deal with marine resources generally, usually in a particular ocean region. The present world coverage by existing commissions of this more general type is relatively complete; the major expcetions being FAO statistical areas 18 (The Arctic), the western parts of area 61 (The Northwest Pacific), area 77 (The East Central Pacific), area 41 (The Southwest Atlantic: covered by CARPAS which has, however, been inactive for many years), and area 47 (formerly covered by ICSEAF which has since been disbanded). Other conspicuous gaps are: area 71 (The South China Sea which is, however, considered by a committee of the IPFC, a body with unspecified geographical boundaries); the southern part of area 81 (Southwest Pacific), and the Black Sea (once partly covered by the now inactive Black Sea Fishery Commission, and by GFCM; both bodies have incomplete membership, of the coastal States). New commissions or consultative bodies (e.g., PICES; created for the North Pacific on the model of ICES) have been proposed or newly created, and extensions or redefinitions of the roles of existing bodies (e.g., the Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission) continue to be discussed. Some multinational groupings, such as the EU for the North Sea and adjacent areas, the Forum Fishery Agency for the central Pacific, SEAFDEC for south east Asia, CARICOM (The Caribbean Community) and OECS, (The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States) effectively carry out some of the functions of a fishery commission for the area enclosed by the combined EEZs of their Member States.
Even with the qualifications mentioned so far, the effectiveness of many existing fishery commissions is often much less than desirable for the following reasons:
Some of these bodies are either relatively inactive; others are advisory bodies without legislative or executive powers to manage resources (e.g., ICES) or have not been able to use their regulatory powers for the management of transboundary stocks. Some (e.g. INPFC and NAFO) have regulatory competence within only a restricted part of the areas included in their convention, and only manage a fraction of the species within the area of jurisdiction.
Some commissions concerned primarily with coastal and shelf resources pay little attention to the resources of offshore waters nominally falling within their terms of reference and competence.
Fishery commissions usually function on the basis of consensus among their contracting parties or member countries, have poor information and no control over fishing by non-members, nor an independent capability to detect or punish infringements or misreporting by Member States. The required consensus for different management measures is often hard to achieve. Although few have binding authority in basic conservation matters, several have been successful in applying economic pressure to achieve some conservation objectives.
Many commissions lack sufficient financial support, sometimes because they have not been able to extract prompt payment of dues by all their Member States. Consequently, they lack properly constituted and staffed Secretariats and, largely as a consequence of this, and the often low level of commitment of their Member States, they may lack the basic data required to properly identify conservation needs.
Vessels from flag States that are not members of a commission or party to an agreement are nevertheless under the obligation to comply with measures that Member States have to take on the basis of their general duties in the conservation of high-seas resources under Articles 117–119 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Clearly there is a need to continually review and update coverage of areas and species by management bodies, to review their powers and funding and, if feasible, to correct for some of these anomalies and for the Commissions to define future areas for collaborative action by them, with the main aim of avoiding duplication of effort, sharing of fishery statistics and information, and transferring expertise and technology.
The sustainable development of the marine environment today calls for striking a balance, at the international, regional, national and local levels, between the needs of the various sectors sharing the marine environment. To be sustainable, however, there is a requirement that areas of priority be assigned which reflect the fact that some activities are impacted in a non-sustainable way by others. The International Organizations mentioned in Annex III have set up a number of joint bodies to ensure this in different fields, such as in the field of marine pollution covered by GESAMP (see References).
Conventions have already been developed for several semi-enclosed seas; these are principally concerned with the protection of the marine environment. The main ones are:
The Mediterranean: The Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution, 1976, (with protocols on oil and harmful substances, dumping, land-based pollution and specially protected areas).
The persian Gulf: The Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution, 1978, (with protocols concerning co-operation in combatting oil spills and other harmful substances).
The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden: The Jeddah convention for the conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment, 1982, with a similar protocol to the foregoing.
The Caribbean region: The Cartagena Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, also with a protocol for combatting oil spills.
The Baltic Sea: The Helsinki Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1974.
The North Sea: The Oslo Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping, 1972 (also covers the northeast Atlantic) and the Bonn Agreement for Co-operation in Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil, 1969 and 1983.
It is worth noting that most of the other semi-enclosed seas lack specific internationally registered protocols for protection of the marine environment and resources, although bilateral environmental and fishing agreements may exist in some cases, such as that between Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago on access to Gulf of Paria fisheries, and between Argentina and Uruguay for hake fisheries in the common fishing zone off the River Plate.
The Regional Seas Programme of UNEP is designed particularly to address the environmental problems of semi-enclosed seas, and needs to be extended to other semi-enclosed seas. However, only two of the eight UNEP Regional Seas Conventions have currently been supplemented by protocols on the prevention and control of pollution from land based sources.
With respect to fisheries, a significant proportion of human experience and skilled manpower in the field of marine resource and environmental management is located around these “core” seas. For example, the North and the Irish Seas, the Baltic, the Sea of Japan, and the Mediterranean and Black Seas, are all subject of investigation by teams of experienced scientists. As noted by Smith and Vallega (1990), these human resources will need to transmit their skills to the equivalent bodies that should be set up for other enclosed and semi-enclosed seas.
Major deficiences in co-ordination of actions exist between bodies concerned with environmental protection and those concerned with fisheries; statutory bodies charged with combining environmental and resource protection have not yet been set up, and this continued division is also reflected in the relatively little cross-fertilization between marine resources research and marine environmental studies.
More integration between organizations concerned with environmental conservation and the appropriate regional fishery commission would reinforce the efforts being made to reduce human impacts on the environment so as to ensure a healthy resource base.
Some specific suggestions for action have been made earlier in relation to specific ecological provinces (section 2). In the present section, common elements that are of general concern in relation to sustainable development of living marine resources are brought together here below. As in section 2, the action is first specified (boldface) with complementary text in parenthesis (lightface).
7.5.1.1 Increasing National Capacity
Effective overall governmental control over the marine resources under national jurisdiction is a precursor to proper management. (Government should take the lead in setting national standards, supporting the research needed for resource assessment, encouraging international collaboration, and promoting education in marine affairs. At the same time, the delegation of some rights and responsibilities, under specified conditions, to communities, local organizations or even individuals appears to be the key to sustainable development of the marine environment).
Compilation of reliable and timely satistics is needed on all aspects of marine resource utilization, and the incorporation of statistical systems into the management and control provisions at national and local levels. (This provision of accurate information on removals from the marine environment should be a precondition of access to exploitation of marine resources).
The initiation by governments of fishery management measures should be effected before, rather than after, overfishing becomes evident. (Marine fisheries are not self-regulating, and proper management of marine resources is not ensured by the existence of a market for marine products. Supply and demand are now largely determined globally, and local safeguards are required to ensure continuity of supply of marine food products to markets).
Pre-emptive regulation, with regular review of the resource data, started early in the development stage of a fishery, should take into account experience with similar fisheries elsewhere, since such regulation cannot await the availability of complete data on the resource. (The consequence of an over-cautious precautionary evaluation is a possible loss in revenue over a few years, whereas an over-optimistic evaluation or no action at all, may lead to resource collapse in the long run and for a long period, if not permanently, with the consequent need for expensive and socially unpopular restoration measures).
Encouragement of free trade and free-market economies are essential for development, but need parallel governmental safeguards to protect natural resources. (Without control of access to the resource, market demand leads to effort increases beyond optimum levels for economic resource use, and compromises the biological stability of the associated biological community).
The proportion of fish directly available for human food should be increased by avoiding wastage and improved techniques of capture, handling and transportation. (To the extent possible, fish for human food should take priority over its other uses; for example, substitutes should be found where possible, for the use fo fish protein as animal feed).
The understanding of the importance of fish for nutrition needs, and the establishment of quality assurance and fish inspection systems are both required, as well as systems for measuring contamination of marine products as a result of pollution.
Government support is needed for the development of institutions to undertake relevant research, and provide the information needed for sustainable development and management of living marine resources.
A wider diffusion of suitable technology required to improve understanding of the oceans and the marine environment, is a priority, particularly for institutes in developing countries. (This technology includes remote-sensing systems, computer modelling, data bases and data and image analysis techniques. It also requires sharing, on a regional basis, expensive facilities such as research vessels and remote– sensing systems. wide diffusion of skills can be facilitated by training, networking, increased exchange of personnel between institutes in developing and developed countries, and by sea-going experience on research vessels. All of these mechanisms should be fostered and promoted by international aid agencies).
Geographical Information Systems for the quantification and appraisal of living marine resources and fisheries, their environment and the coastal communities involved in their sustainable use are required, not only for exclusively national resources, but also for shared resources and for high-seas resources, as an aid to decision-making.
Increased application of new technological developments, such as remote sensing, computer modelling and GIS, to all marine ecosystems and fish stocks under exploitation, could improve forecasting of the effects of natural or man-induced environmental change.
Basic, applied and management-oriented research should be promoted, with particular emphasis on the marine resources and environment.
Promotion of information diffusion on the need for conservation of the marine environment, with the involvement of all groups concerned, at all levels is required, as well as the development of legislation to protect renewable resources for the use of present and future generations.
Marine environmental issues need to be incorporated into school and university curricula, and public awareness of these issues promoted, particularly in coastal communities.
7.5.1.2 Straddling Stocks
The harmonization of policies and legislation by States exploiting resources in common should lead, where possible, to common rules, standards and procedures to prevent pollution. (Legislation for environmental and resource management could, for example, have built-in clauses covering the financing of these actions and the underlying research they require).
A common or at least compatible framework for the regulation of stocks exploited in common is required, including vessel licensing and marking, common log books for compulsory reporting of catches, common mesh sizes and other gear specifications, and common procedures for control and surveillance should help to achieve cost-effectiveness, and encourage mutual confidence between the parties concerned.
7.5.1.3 International Organizations
A greater effort is needed by all international organizations concerned with marine affairs to promote effective co-operation between themselves and between their Member Nations in all matters relating to sustainable development of high-seas areas, their resources and environments.
Mechanisms should be improved for co-ordination and information flow between concerned organizations and government departments, and strategic planning incorporated into decision-making relative to renewable resource use.
Training in marine affairs at an advanced, interdisciplinary level will be needed, with particular emphasis on the integration of environmental and resource management at the ecosystem level. (The financial advantages accruing to national technical experts should ideally be commensurate with the costs of training and alternative employment opportunities in the private sector).
The building of national competence should be pursued by the provision of training material, specialized software and advisory services, and supporting regional centres of excellence, particularly for small island countries with limited human resources and expertise.
Guidelines should be developed for the application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to the monitoring and protection of sensitive or special environments of high importance to marine production.
The development of national legislation should be assisted in areas embodied in relevant international conventions such as control of the transfer of live marine species and the promotion of responsible fishing.
Regional approaches, such as co-operative research and workshops, to the definition of shared or straddling stocks and the measurement of their genetic diversity, should be promoted.
