Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: Summary of developments and relevance to the FAO Consultation on Interaction of Pacific Tuna Fisheries

John Hampton
Oceanic Fisheries Programme
South Pacific Commission
B.P. D5
Noumea, New Caledonia

ABSTRACT

The UN Conference has, to date, resulted in a draft agreement that is likely to have a significant impact on the way fisheries science is applied to straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. The draft agreement calls for conservation and management measures to ensure long-term sustainability and promote optimum utilization of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, and, as such, it is clear that fishery interactions must be considered. The draft agreement also calls for biologically defensible means of ensuring that conservation and management measures are equivalent in promoting conservation; this also requires an understanding of how fisheries impact fish stocks and each other.

1. INTRODUCTION

There has been concern in the international community for some years regarding the impact on fish stocks of unregulated fishing on the high seas. While broad principals and measures regarding the conservation and management of fish stocks on the high seas are to be found in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it has been generally recognised that these broad principals and measures need to be more fully elaborated in order to be effective. Since 1990, a number of international meetings have been held for this purpose, including the International Conference on Conservation and Management of the Living Resources of High Seas, held at St. John’s, Newfoundland in 1990, a meeting of Latin American States, Canada and New Zealand, held at Santiago, Chile, in May 1991 (which produced the “Santiago Document”), and the International Conference on Responsible Fishing Practices, held at Cancun, Mexico in May 1992.

Various initiatives developed at these meetings were pursued during the preparatory sessions of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Ultimately, UNCED agreed, in Agenda 21, that states should convene an inter-governmental conference under United Nations auspices with a view to promoting the effective implementation of the provisions of UNCLOS on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. The United Nations General Assembly resolution 47/192 (December 1992) subsequently called for the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (hereafter referred to as the Conference) to be convened.

2. PROGRESS TO DATE

Three sessions of the Conference have now been held (July 1993, March 1994, August 1994) and a further two sessions are scheduled (March-April 1995, August 1995). Several inter-sessional meetings have also been held. Much of the work of the Conference to date had been directed towards the development and refinement of a Chairman’s Negotiating Text, which took the form of a draft agreement among participating countries on measures that would essentially give effect to the provisions of UNCLOS regarding conservation and management measures for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. At the August 1994 session, it was agreed that the outcome of the Conference would take the form of a legally-binding agreement. The Chairman’s Negotiating Text was then re-drafted in treaty language and now takes the form of a “Draft Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.” Copies of the current draft of the agreement (23 August 1994) are available from the Secretariat.

3. DRAFT AGREEMENT

While the wording of the draft agreement is subject to amendment during the final two sessions of the Conference, its basic structure and principals are likely to remain intact. The basic structure of the draft agreement is as follows:

PART I.

General Provisions. Contains articles defining terms and scope and stating objectives and application of the agreement.



PART II.

Conservation And Management Of Straddling Fish Stocks And Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Contains articles outlining the obligations of coastal states and fishing states, the application of the precautionary approach and the requirement for compatibility of measures taken in EEZs and on the high seas.



PART III.

Mechanisms For International Cooperation Concerning Straddling Fish Stocks And Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Articles include obligations of states to cooperate, the role of regional organisations or arrangements, and participation of states in such organisations or arrangements.



PART IV.

Responsibilities Of The Flag State.



PART V.

Compliance And Enforcement.



PART VI.

Port State Enforcement.



PART VII.

Requirements Of Developing States.



PART VIII.

Peaceful Settlement Of Disputes



PART IX.

Non-participants.



PART X.

Abuse Of Rights.



PART XI.

Non-parties To This Agreement.



PART XII.

Reports On Implementation And Review Conference.



PART XIII.

Final Provisions.



ANNEX 1.

Minimum Standard For Collection And Sharing Of Data.



ANNEX 2.

Suggested Guidelines For Application Of Precautionary Reference Points In Conservation And Management Of Straddling Fish Stocks And Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.



ANNEX 3.

Arbitration Procedure.


4. RELEVANCE TO FAO EXPERT CONSULTATION ON INTERACTIONS OF PACIFIC TUNA FISHERIES

The draft agreement has many references to technical issues and is likely to have a significant impact on the way fisheries science is applied to fish stocks covered by the agreement. Many of these issues are general, e.g., assessment of impacts on by-catch or ecologically related species, use of the precautionary approach, dealing with uncertainty in assessments and minimum data requirements for assessment. While such issues may be of interest to the Consultation, they go beyond our principal focus of fishery interaction.

However, there are two related areas of the draft agreement that can be pinpointed as being of direct relevance to our work. The first appears in Article 5 (a), in which it is stated that States shall “adopt conservation and management measures to ensure long-term sustainability and promote optimum utilization of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.” For this obligation to be met, it is clear that fishery interaction must be accounted for. Most fisheries for straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks, almost by definition, comprise different interest groups that can be defined by nationality, fishing area, fishing method, or a combination of these. The impacts of each of these interest groups (or “fisheries”) upon one another will need to be estimated in order to promote “optimum utilization.” (The definition of what “optimum” really means and how different perspectives of “optimum” might be accommodated is yet to be elaborated.) The use of the term “optimum” also implies that socio-economic factors will need to be quantified and taken into account.

The second area which is of relevance to the work of this Consultation is elaborated in Article 7 of the draft agreement, which requires that compatible conservation and management measures be applied to straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks throughout their range. In particular, in determining compatible conservation and management measures, it is envisaged that States shall “take into account the biological unity and other characteristics of the stock(s) and the relationships between the distribution of the stock(s), the fisheries and the geographical particularities of the region, including the extent to which the stock(s) occur and are fished in areas under national jurisdiction” (Article 7-2(b)). The underlying intent of the article as a whole seems to be to ensure that there is some biologically defensible means of ensuring that conservation and management measures on the high seas and in areas under national jurisdiction are somehow “equivalent” in effect in promoting conservation objectives. This requires an understanding of how fisheries operating in different area impact each other and the stock as a whole. Provision of scientific advice to fisheries management organisations or arrangements within these guidelines will present a substantial challenge to scientists. If it can be achieved, knowledge of the spatial variation in biological characteristics (recruitment, movement, mortality, growth, etc.) of the stock and spatial variation in fishing effort will be a prerequisite.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Future management requirements for straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks are likely to present new challenges to scientists. In order to meet these challenges, assessment methodologies will need to explicitly deal with spatial aspects of the stock and its exploitation as well as enabling interactions among the various interest groups involved to be quantified. Socio-economic factors are likely to be important components of these methodologies. The demands for data on the biological characteristics of the stocks and their fisheries to support such assessments will increase, and in particular, may need to be of greater spatial resolution than has been acceptable in the past.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page