This year marks 30 years since the negotiation of the UN Agreement on Fisheries was completed. As an implementing agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it has gained great importance for fisheries management and is important for the conservation of the marine environment.
By Alf Håkon Hoel, Professor, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Center for Geopolitics, and Institute of Marine Research
The agreement was created because overfishing in areas outside the 200-nautical-mile limit (“high seas”) undermined efforts at sustainable fisheries management both within and outside the 200-mile limit in several areas around the world.
The agreement is legally binding for the countries that are parties to it. It contains important innovations in terms of management principles, international cooperation, and enforcement of regulations. The precautionary approach was enshrined in an international agreement for the first time, together with, among other things, the principle of ecosystem-based management. The agreement strengthens the role of regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) and arrangements by strengthening cooperation obligations. It also contains provisions on the enforcement of regulations that strengthen the global regime in this area.
Implementation
International agreements are worth little if they are not properly implemented. This is about putting the rules in the agreements into practice. The UN agreement entered into force in 2001 and has since led to extensive changes in fisheries management in many regions. Above all, the implementation of the precautionary approach is important by introducing harvest control rules and management plans that link objectives and means and define harvest rates and spawning stock biomass with reference values.
Secondly, the regional fisheries management organizations have been given increased authority. Existing RFMOs have had their statutes modernized, such as in the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). In areas where such organizations did not exist, several new such organizations have now been established, including in the North Pacific. In total, there are now about 20 such organizations worldwide. However, there are still some areas that lack them, including in the southwest Atlantic. Many RFMOs have also tightened their enforcement rules and established stricter monitoring of fisheries.
At the same time as these developments, several new arrangements have also been negotiated under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Some of these are legally binding, such as the 2009 Port State Agreement, which strengthens the role of port states in combating illegal fishing. Several non-legally binding norm-setting instruments have also been developed, such as the Guidelines for Deep-Sea Fishing.
All is not well
Fisheries outside the 200-mile limit account for around 5% of global landings. The agreement is particularly important in these areas, but is also of great significance within the 200 nautical mile zones because many fish stocks are found both inside and outside these limits.
There are large differences between different regions in the world in terms of the quality of fisheries management and thus the state of fish stocks. Several studies show that in regions where modern fisheries management has been implemented and the rules are complied with, things are working out. However, FAO reports also show a negative trend where the number of overexploited stocks is increasing.
Lessons Learned
The three decades of the UN Fish Stocks agreement and its implementation offer some important lessons. Above all, the agreement is legally binding, so that the countries that join it are legally obliged to implement and comply with it. The principles of the agreement are thus enshrined in the Norwegian Marine Resources Act, to take one example.
A key point is also that in connection with the agreement entering into force, a system of annual fisheries resolutions was established in the UN General Assembly, in addition to the resolutions on the oceans and the law of the sea. This allows the international community to closely monitor the implementation of the agreement – the annual resolutions contain a wide range of recommendations on how things can be done better. It is also important that the agreement requires regular review conferences to be held where the parties assess how the implementation of the agreement is working and make recommendations on this.
The role of the FAO here must also be emphasized. The FAO develops detailed norms and guidelines for how both the UN agreement and the recommendations in the resolutions are to be implemented. There is also a cooperation under the auspices of the FAO for the secretariats of the RFMOs so that the implementation of rules and norms is harmonized globally.
Finally, the agreement sets out a regional rather than a global approach to fisheries management and marine conservation. The conditions in different regions are unique and require approaches and solutions that are specific to the individual region, but based on some global principles.
The status of the agreement as an implementation agreement under the Convention on the Law of the Sea is now politically more significant than ever. We are currently discussing the implementation of a third implementation agreement on the conservation and use of biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction.