There was general recognition by the Conference participants that the national and international track record in managing deep-sea fisheries is, in many cases, poor. This is the consequence of the significant deficiencies in the knowledge of the biology of deep-sea fish species and functioning of deep-sea ecosystems, and even the knowledge of the amounts of catch, locations of fish harvesting and amounts of fishing effort. It was also apparent that complementing these inadequacies in the knowledge base are deficiencies in decision-making, governance, implementation of management and conservation measures, and compliance with requirements for sustainable and responsible fisheries. However, it was recognized that rapid action may enable remaining deep-sea fishery resources to be harvested in a sustainable manner and enable protection of deep-sea biodiversity. To do this, it was agreed that the lessons that are evident from past mistakes must be taken and current management approaches changed.
Can’t manage without data
It was recognized that the available information on deep-sea fisheries and the deep-sea environment is poor but is improving. And, it has become apparent that that there is more variability in deep-sea species and the deep-sea environment than has widely been assumed. But, it was rapidly apparent that developing technologies for obtaining and managing information now offer new opportunities to obtain data and for extracting essential information. However, acquiring good information on, and from, the deep sea remains costly and this is a particular challenge for developing countries. The distinction was also made between the ability of fishing operators to provide data - of this there was little doubt - and the mechanisms of providing data, which are well established, though not sufficiently well used. It was agreed that the obligation to provide data for management purposes must be accepted as non-negotiable on both the part of governments of the flag States and the industry themselves. Governments must provide moral and legal support to ensure that the data needed for management are provided and undertake the necessary coordination to ensure this happens.
Thus, it is essential that researchers ensure that the right information is collected and those in the research community should enhance collaboration with the fishery industry and those in non-fishery disciplines in gathering such information. It was agreed that the technique of meta-analysis appears to be useful in using information from relatively data-rich fisheries to inform those responsible for management of data-poor fisheries in a cost-effective manner.
Full documentation of fishery activity and national requirements for confidentiality of data
Fisheries managers and assessment scientists noted that the basis for successful resource management is the complete documentation of fishing activities - catch success (species and catch volumes), knowledge of the location of fishing activities such that catches can be attributed to appropriate management units, or fish stocks and information on the general level of fishing effort. However, it was noted that interpretation of effort data in many deepwater fisheries, especially those centred on seamounts, was far from straight forward. Because of the limited areal scale of the stocks targeted by many deepwater fisheries, many are prosecuted by only a few vessels, and perhaps only one or two from a single country. This complicates the provision of detailed data and, at a minimum, requires mechanisms of governance that industry members can trust to safeguard their commercial competitiveness - a challenge that has not always been met.
Different fisheries - Many of the same problems
As with other fisheries, deep-sea fisheries occur both within areas of national jurisdiction, as transboundary and straddling resources and in high-seas areas. In this context, it was recognized that the problems posed by the management of deep-sea fisheries are not as different from other fisheries as has often been assumed, and indeed many of the problems that arise in the management of deepwater fisheries also plague the effective management of many shallow-water and coastal fisheries. Not least among these is, commonly, the absence of reliable catch, effort and related data in sufficient detail to allow effective resource management.
But, there remain significant differences that influence the ability to manage fisheries at great depths. One fundamental difference is the high proportion in deepwater fisheries of long-lived species that have an inherent low biological productivity, which makes them vulnerable to overfishing. A second fundamental difference arises from the locations in which these fisheries are prosecuted (i.e. deepwaters and usually high-seas conditions), so that obtaining the information needed for their management is expensive. The Conference noted that a further problem, common not only to deepwater fisheries, is that irrespective of the ability to ensure compliance with management regulations, harvesting rules usually did not exist outside of the most general terms of the UNCLOS.
Harvest optimism versus management precaution
There was common agreement that assessments of the potentially available yields from deep-sea fisheries, characteristically, have turned out to be too high. As such, this indicated a systemic failure in the assessment procedures of deepwater fisheries resources that has gone beyond justifiable optimism. In some fisheries, there have been attempts to apply a precautionary approach to the regulation of the fisheries but, in many cases, the results that followed showed that the degree of risk aversion was not enough. Many actions were going to be necessary to address these failures. Use of meta-analyses in situations where data were meagre and insufficient to demonstrate an appropriate management action would enable the database to be broadened and the benefit of information from other similar fisheries to be used. There was common agreement that the consideration and testing of hypotheses must be broadened to include a range of different resource status possibilities, and results of analyses should be referenced to external and better known situations so as to provide better indications of how to address these issues in future.
There was some confidence that based on our experience of managing deep-sea fisheries and with the application of high levels of caution, it should be possible to manage larger deep-sea fisheries in a sustainable manner. However, without a significant increase in the level of information, there is little confidence that relatively small fisheries for low productivity species can be managed sustainably. Deep-sea sharks are good examples of such species and there was a strong view that the disposition of fishing effort should be directed so that these species are avoided.
There is considerable concern about the adverse effects of fishing on the deep-sea environment. The effects of fishing have been observed in some instances and, in some habitats, are severe. However, the difficulty and cost of obtaining information on the effects of fishing in deep-sea environments means that we have only a poor understanding of the extent and importance of such adverse effects. It was apparent that much deep-sea fishing is directed at fish locations that have been detected after searching operations and which occur in restricted areas. While the effects of such fishing upon benthic fauna may be severe, it also appears to occur in relatively restricted areas. Less information is available on the extent of ‘extensive’ deepwater bottom trawling where long tows are undertaken that are not particularly directed at fish aggregations that are first located before shooting the gear. More information is required to define and delimit this problem so that the proposals to restrict, or, ban deepwater trawling can be better assessed given that there are strong views that at least some areas should be protected from the effects of fishing, irrespective the degree of understanding of the impacts of fishing.
There are examples of inadequate management and decision-making and attempts to redress these in respect of deep-sea fisheries. Within national jurisdictions some authorities have acted too slowly to collect and analyze data, and to protect deep-sea fisheries and the deep-sea environment from the adverse effects of rapidly developing fisheries. In other jurisdictions, e.g. in the Tasman Sea, after initially mixed success, several states have converged on what now appear to be satisfactory management procedures and harvesting strategies, but the long term results remain unclear.
Gaps in coverage
Many presentations noted the conservation problems arising in areas where there was no formal mechanism for management of deepwater resources. The UNCLOS provides only a general basis for conservation and management of all marine living resources and requires that states cooperate in managing high seas fisheries. The 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, an implementing agreement for UNCLOS, provides sound general principles that reflect an ecosystem approach and endorses a precautionary approach to fisheries management. It covers deepsea fisheries insofar as they are straddling stocks, of which there are a number. It leaves a gap, however, with respect to deep-sea fisheries that exploit stocks that are neither straddling nor highly migratory, such as discrete stocks associated with seamounts. The UNFSA is itself implemented through regional fisheries management organizations RFMOs and other regional arrangements. While some of these have a mandate to cover deep-sea fisheries, others do not. Further, there are significant geographic gaps in RFMO coverage of these fisheries.
Because the deepwater resources in areas where there is no formal management mechanism have often been heavily fished, continuing interest in remaining in the fishery has usually declined and often there were few remaining participants. While the result - few participants - would facilitate coming to an agreement on a management mechanism, the total value of such fisheries has also been much reduced so that the ratio of management costs to the value of the fishery has become high.
It was agreed that it was important to identify and document all areas of deepwater fishing activity so as to identify those deepwater resources that are not subject to any management regime. This would provide a basis for determining the urgency of addressing this problem and the potential costs from failure to do so.
Failure of States to implement their high-seas obligations - IUU fishing
A reoccurring theme through out DEEP SEA 2003 was the failure of so many vessels to provide information adequate for the purpose of successful resource management. Where management protocols existed, the Conference heard of the various programmes that were addressing this issue and the general basis for optimism that the size of this problem was being diminished. However, the weaknesses of the existing UNCLOS mechanism were raised on many occasions. And, in the cases where there were no management agreements, it was agreed that such fishing is more appropriately referred to as LUU, legal, unreported and regulated fishing. Such observations underlined the need to review the coverage of existing agreements to identify those stocks most vulnerable to depletion because of the absence of a management agreement.
Who is to pay for management?
The Conference noted that management of deepwater fishery resources requires undertaking all of the conventional administrative activities involved in fisheries management. Data on fishery operations must be collected, reviewed, put into databases and analyzed, all on a timely basis. As many deepwater fisheries occur on the high-seas, appropriate governance institutions are required and agreements must be reached on satisfactory funding mechanisms. Several new deepwater fisheries have been characterized by large, but transient, fishing fleets, though subsequent fishing activity may be undertaken by only a few vessels flagged to a relatively small group of countries. Such ‘boutique’ fisheries have relatively high management costs given the full suite of management activities that are required
Reaching agreement on how management will funded, and how much, takes time, often much longer than the initial high-catch period of the fishery lasts. Further, as the Conference heard on several occasions, the UNCLOS, the major existing agreement on management of deepwater resources, does not bind fishing countries to effective implementation of the agreement if their governments choose not to ratify relevant agreemements. Participants at the Conference regularly returned to the need for inclusive international agreements to address this requirement, both for funding requirements to be satisfied and to achieve management objectives.
Duty to cooperate
A major issue discussed by the Conference dealt with the requirement of the UNCLOS that states prosecuting deepwater fisheries on the high seas have a duty to cooperate in the management of the fisheries. As has been noted, the Conference was confronted with the issue of how this could be best done, e.g. through existing regional fisheries management organizations or through the creation of new management bodies in areas where no agreements existed for management of deepwater resources and where such fishing might be anticipated if it was not already taking place. To the extent that the existing UNCLOS agreement was considered insufficient to ensure implementation of effective management practices, some participants were of the view that entirely new agreements and conventions were required, while others at DEEP SEA 2003 noted the length of time that had been involved in reaching accord on the present agreements and were of the view that it would be better to revise and build on the existing conventions. There was also discussion of extending the UNFSA to cover all high-seas fish stocks, including discrete stocks so that its principles and the precautionary approach could guide establishment of more specific management arrangements for particular deepsea stocks.
A particular concern was how to create systems of incentives that would best ensure that fishing countries would support necessary management arrangements and, at a minimum, not undermine the intent of those that already exist. The views of participants were divided as to what could be achieved with voluntary agreements, especially in the face of the incentives to ‘free-ride’ on those operators who choose to, or were required by their flag State to fish responsibly and accurately report their fishing operations data, etc.
