Discussion Papers
7. Mr Gordon Munro presented the opening discussion paper entitled “On the Management of Shared Fish Stocks”.
8. The ensuing debate addressed several issues including terminology and definitions, scope of application of game theory to shared stocks issues within national EEZs, and areas of interpretation of international legal instruments, especially the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. It was commented that “resilience” was the preferred term to “time consistency” to connote the critical requirement of a cooperative agreement to be robust and stable over time.
9. The role of side payments was discussed in the context of both, their ability to enlarge the bargaining space in the negotiation of cooperative agreements as well as their potential role to respond to the claims of potential - or actual - new members of a cooperative agreement in the case of straddling stocks. In this connection, it was observed that fisheries may be of minor national interest, and possibly sacrificed, in order to reach agreement on economically more valuable shared maritime resources (e.g. oil, gas, etc.). Conversely, it was noted that progress in reaching consensus on shared fisheries issues (e.g. in the European Union) did not infrequently rely on side payments originating from other sectors than fisheries.
10. The definition of what constitutes a “real interest” is critical when addressing the new member issue in the case of straddling fish stocks. It was commented that the sole or predominant reference to historical catches in determining real interest in a fishery may work against the interests of late comers (e.g. many developing countries and especially new nations), while, on the other hand, may unjustly favour those fishing fleets which have contributed to the over-exploitation of straddling fish stocks. A possible buy-in of new members into existing cooperative management arrangements may also be to the disadvantage of many developing countries facing limited financial resources.
11. Ms Annick Van Houtte presented a paper entitled “Legal Aspects in the Management of Shared Fish Stocks - A Review”.
12. In the discussion following the presentation, several legal issues were raised concerning the management of shared stocks. It was suggested that a distinction might be made between the notion of agreements being “legally binding” and “politically binding”, with the latter perhaps carrying more weight in practical terms, than the former. It was further noted that arrangements often became “politically binding” before they were formally adopted and became legally binding for their parties. Another issue related to compatibility of management measures under the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and whether a coastal State with less strict management measures within its EEZ than a regional fisheries management organization or arrangement (RFMO) might be required to strengthen its management measures to make them compatible with those of the RFMO. It was pointed out that the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement implemented the 1982 UN Convention and that therefore such an alignment of compatibility was not provided for. It was also noted that a legal definition of “shared stock” had not evolved. It was questioned whether a legal definition would be beneficial given that the lack of definition may provide flexibility in the application of the term.
Case Studies
13. Ms Kathleen Miller presented a paper entitled “North American Pacific Salmon: A Case of Fragile Cooperation”.
14. Following Ms Miller’s presentation, a question was raised with respect to the appropriateness of the allocation formula. It was pointed out that the appropriate percentage of allocation depended on the environmental conditions. It was noted that disputes arose also within the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) concerning the abundance estimates which led to an agreement with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) on the parameters concerning the calculation of the abundance estimates. When ICES changed its calculation methods, problems started again within NASCO which adopted a real time abundance monitoring on a two weeks basis.
15. Mr David Doulman presented the paper prepared by Mr Transform Aquorau entitled “Cooperative Management of Shared Fish Stocks in the South Pacific”.
16. The paper highlighted the success, which Pacific Island States have achieved in taking a cooperative approach to the management of the tuna resources within their respective EEZs, in terms of the harmonisation of their approaches to fishing by distant water fishing nations (DWFN). The heart of the discussion focussed on the degree to which this approach could be applied elsewhere. It was pointed out that most of the tuna stocks in the region were still in a healthy state, thus making otherwise difficult management decisions, such as allocations, relatively easy at this point in time. The degree of success, which the Pacific Island States were having with vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and transhipping compliance was also questioned. In response, it was pointed out that, to begin with, all of these countries share a common goal in their interactions with DWFNs. The Pacific Island States have put in place very effective incentives for DWFNs to comply with the regulations, such as the register of fishing vessels. A loss of good standing in the register has dire consequences in terms of access to the fishery. In response to a question of the importance of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the effectiveness of the bloc of Pacific Countries at the UN Fish Stocks Conference was noted. The UN Fish Stocks Agreement has provided the basis of the new Western and Central Pacific Ocean Fisheries Commission. It was suggested that the role of the Foreign Fisheries Agency, which facilitates the coordination of the countries, would change with this new arrangement, as more complex layers of fisheries management and negotiation evolved.
17. Mr Olav Schram Stokke presented a paper entitled “The Loophole of the Barents Sea Fisheries Regime”.
18. The nature of the initial allocation of the total allowable catch (TAC) and the subsequent allocation swaps were clarified. It was pointed out that the initial TAC allocation criteria were fixed, irrespective of the exchange of quotas (or swap allocations). The issues of scientific research, scientific certainty with regard to a stock, and of who should provide such information was further discussed. The current proliferation of scientists dealing with fish stocks related matters was noted in this regard. The increasing focus on and use of the precautionary approach was felt to become sometimes out of proportion when for instance the specificities of fish stocks and a related fishery sector were not sufficiently taken into account.
19. Mr Walter Ranke presented a paper entitled “Cooperative Fisheries Management Issues in the Baltic Sea”.
20. In discussion, it was pointed out that when TACs were first established by the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC) in the mid 1970s the Coastal States had access to all fishing grounds of the Baltic Sea. Later following the close of the III UN Law of the Sea Conference and the establishment of national Fishery Zones covering the whole Baltic Sea the allocations had to be made under new legal conditions. Several considerations played a role in determining the specific allocations (historical catches, aerial distribution of fish stocks and fishing dependent areas etc.), but there were no clear rules or parameters for reference. However, factors extraneous to fisheries did not figure in the allocation process. For the last few years, the allocations for the Contracting Parties have been based on fixed percentages for the individual species (Cod, Herring, Sprat and Salmon) by countries. Taking into account the specific interests of Contracting Parties in certain species and fisheries transfers of quota and/or reciprocal access agreements have become a normal procedure on a bilateral basis. It was noted that, when transfers of quota are made among members (or reciprocal access agreements), these transfers are not permanent (for one respective year only) and that they are normally exchanged for quota for other species subject to IBSFC management. There have, however, been instances of quota being exchanged in return for development assistance payments.
21. The IBSC has taken steps to limit the effects of IUU fishing. Measures include national authorization of vessels allowed to fish cod in the Convention Area, monthly catch reporting, landing reports where landings are made in ports of other Contracting Parties and since 2001, joint-inspection schemes.
22. Mr Sigmund Engesaeter presented a paper, prepared by Mr. Trond Bj?rndal, entitled “Management of Straddling Fish Stocks: the Case of Norwegian Spring-Spawning Herring Fishery”.
23. After the presentation, Mr. Engesaeter provided some clarifications in response to questions raised from the floor. He noted that the simulation modelling of the outcomes of the various management scenarios (e.g. open access, cartel, monopoly), was based on data of the fishery from the 1990s.
24. In commenting on the assumptions underlying the various management scenarios, the practicality of the monopoly strategy was questioned, as it would go against the wish of fishers to participate actively in the fishery. The monopoly strategy assumes that the fishery would be exploited exclusively by the most efficient fleet thereby maximizing overall returns of the fishery. The less efficient fleets of other countries would be required to terminate their fishing activities, but would be compensated, by receiving shares of the net profit.
25. With regard to the contents of the actual cooperative agreement, it was noted that transfers of quotas were incorporated into the agreement. In addition, the agreement contains bilateral parts allowing Parties to fish in each other's EEZs in order to provide greater flexibility to fishers. This allows, for example, non-Norwegian fleets to exploit adult herring when they are in the Norwegian zone and commercially most valuable.
26. In examining the reasons why cooperation finally succeeded, the conclusion of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement was likely an important factor as it provided guidance on how to address the claim to a share of the TAC by the European Union.
27. Mr Birane Samb presented a paper entitled “Case Study of Small Pelagic Fish Resources in Northwest Africa”.
28. A question was raised with regard to the manner in which the recommended total catches for the small pelagics, sardinella and horse mackerel, was determined. Stock assessment activities have been undertaken with the assistance of the Nansen Project, via acoustic surveys, and through the assessments of the FAO Working Group on Small Pelagics in North West Africa. These activities have enabled the four countries of North West Africa to collect the relevant scientific information and assess these stocks. The use of the term “coastal stocks” was clarified: the term refers to those small pelagic stocks occurring in the EEZs of the coastal States concerned.
29. Mr Derek Staples presented a paper entitled “Management of Shared Fish Stocks - Australian Case Studies”.
30. In response to a query from the floor, Mr Staples explained that Australia uses a number of different approaches to the allocation of shared stocks. In the case of the Arafura/Timor Seas Fisheries, no formal process for allocation is in place with Indonesia at this stage. For the Torres Strait Fisheries, allocations in the Protected Zone are based primarily on vessel numbers, as provided for under the Torres Strait Treaty. For the South Tasman Rise Fisheries, allocations were based on historical catch. He also remarked that Australia is developing collaborative scientific arrangements for shared stocks with East Timor. It is recognized that capacity building will be an important aspect of this collaboration.
31. Ms Jane Willing presented a paper entitled “Arrangement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand for the Conservation and Management of Orange Roughy on the South Tasman Rise”.
32. The debate in plenary addressed several issues relating to the cooperative agreement and the particularities of the orange roughy fishery. It was observed that the agreement, and its improved amendment, had insufficient flexibility to prevent the depletion of the orange roughy stock. This experience demonstrates that, in the case of a fragile stock, such as orange roughy, there is an urgent need for the speedy conclusion of a cooperative agreement, or, at the very least, the implementation of temporary emergency management measures. The inability of the arrangement to control unregulated fishing by third Parties placed additional pressure on the fish stock.
33. Mr Rashid Sumaila presented a paper entitled “Management of shared hake stocks in the Benguela Marine Ecosystem”.
34. Discussions took place concerning the SADC Protocol on Fisheries and its impact on the SADC member countries, in particular coastal states. The Protocol contains a number of provisions which explicitly refer to the cooperative arrangements for the management of transboundary stocks. The responsibility for implementing the Protocol rests primarily with the SADC Member States. As far as transboundary fish stocks are concerned, relevant coastal States are required to cooperate to achieve the objectives of the Protocol. These coastal States will be primarily responsible for the implementation of any cooperative arrangement which they may have concluded. The management of fisheries based on a large marine ecosystem approach was also debated. It was questioned whether such approach would allow for a better management of a fishery. Undoubtedly, the management would be more complex. For instance, in the present case, the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) project is funded by GEF and deals with fisheries, pollution, biodiversity, impact of mining activities, coastal zone management, etc., all activities likely to have an impact on the Benguela Current Ecosystem. The ultimate objective of the project is the creation of a Benguela Current Commission to manage the large marine ecosystem, including fisheries and other sectors. As such, the management of the hake fishery is likely to become a component of a wider system.
35. Mr Julio D. Chaluleu presented a paper entitled “Shared Fishery: Argentine-Uruguayan Common Fishing Zone”.
36. The case study provides an effective demonstration of the fact that the existence of a comprehensive framework for international cooperation, while necessary, is not sufficient to ensure proper conservation and management. Implicit in the paper is the fact that the central issue of overcapacity has not been effectively addressed. Responding to specific questions, Mr Chaluleu clarified that (i) only vessels from Argentina and Uruguay fished in the common fishing zone; (ii) coastal stocks of croakers are likely to be common to Brazil as well (to a certain extent) but the fact that they do not migrate much leads to believe that there is not much interference between management and exploitation systems; and (iii) the two countries provide scientific advice to the Commission. Mr Chaluleu also stressed that the scientific monitoring is suffering from lack of financial resources, due to the particular economic conditions prevailing in the area at present.
37. Mr Andrew Thomson presented a paper entitled “The Management of Red Fish (Sebastes mentella) in the North Atlantic”.
38. The Consultation observed that the situation concerning the management of redfish in the North Atlantic Ocean provided an opportunity for North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) to enhance their cooperation for the long-term sustainable development of fish stocks in the North Atlantic Ocean. It was pointed out that effective cooperation between the two organizations was imperative and that solutions to support the conservation and management of redfish must be found. It was noted that, since all the Contracting Parties of NEAFC are also Contracting Parties of NAFO, collaboration between the two organizations was made easier, than would otherwise have been the case.
39. Mr Moshen Al-Husaini presented a paper entitled “Fishery of Shared Stock of the Silver Pomfret (Pampus argenteus) in the Northern Gulf”.
40. The Consultation noted that pomfret, a highly valuable fish in the northern Gulf, is taken by a gillnet fishery that is exploited by fleets from three neighbouring countries. Additional information on fleet structure and scientific information on the stock is required in order to promote more effective cooperative management. It was pointed out that over the 1980s, a main fishing area for pomfret was closed. When the area was reopened in 1991, both a significant increase in fishing effort and high CPUEs led to a substantial increase in catches. This experience indicates that pomfret stocks can be rebuilt, if fishing effort is restricted. The goal of management for this stock is the implementation of an ITQ system. It was suggested that, while such an approach to management could assist in easing the problem of allocations between the countries exploiting the resource, the approach would require a mature fisheries administration to be effective.
41. Mr J. Zuzunaga presented a paper entitled “Some Shared Fish Stocks of South Eastern Pacific”.
42. A question was raised with regard to the implementation of the Galapagos Agreement. It was asked how consistency was ensured between the management measures adopted on the high seas and those applicable in the EEZ of the respective parties. It was noted that the Agreement was not yet in force. Nevertheless, relevant species need to be protected. In the interim, there seems to be a general understanding that relevant EEZ related management measures of each Party would apply to the adjacent high seas area. Information on cooperation in scientific research was asked for. Cooperation exists between Peru and Chile: biological research has been undertaken with respect to anchovies and sardines. Furthermore, IMARPE Institute (Istituto del Mar del Peru) has, during its 40 years of existence, collected accurate and comprehensive data. The presenter demonstrated that the management measures in place constitute an appropriate response to natural challenges like El Niño phenomenon.
