Fisheries
7. How are fisheries regulated?
7.1 How is the role of regional fishery bodies changing?
- 7.1.1 Situation before the UNCED
- 7.1.2 Situation after the UNCED
7.1.1 Situation before the UNCED
The source document for this Digest states:
A clear shift in the role of Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) has occurred over the past half-century –a trend that has intensified since the adoption of key international fisheries instruments following the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Prior to the early 1980s, the mandates of many RFBs identified their role as research and advisory rather than decision-making and enforcement. The focus of decision-making in most RFBs was how best to serve as a forum for fisheries management rather than as a fisheries management body.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea prompted a sharp focus on the emerging role of RFBs. A suite of new activities was envisaged by the Convention giving RFBs a greater role than had been intended previously. They would maintain their essential functions as fora for international cooperation; as vehicles for research, analysis and data repository and exchange; and as advisors on fisheries management in accordance with their mandates. In addition, however, the Convention foresaw new activities, such as:
- protecting stocks associated with harvested stocks from depletion;
- conserving stocks outside the 200-mile zone;
- providing advice to coastal states on the conservation of stocks inside the 200-mile zone; pursuing compulsory dispute settlement options;
- providing coastal states with all relevant information regarding fishing activities in high seas areas adjacent to their exclusive economic zones;
- the implementation by coastal states of appropriate minimum standards;
- providing a conduit through which coastal states could fulfil their obligation to give due notice of their relevant conservation and management laws and regulations and make information available on the outer limits of their exclusive economic zones;
- considering stricter regulations for marine mammals than those required for other species.
In response to these changes, many RFBs have reviewed or amended their respective agreements or conventions. However, the 1982 UN Convention, itself, can be considered inadequate as a mechanism for promoting effective fisheries management, in view of three interrelated factors:
- The Convention does not confer management authority on RFBs.
- The Convention ushered in an era of newly declared sovereign rights over extended areas of ocean space, which became a paramount consideration for many coastal states.
- The general state of the world fisheries resources at the time did not appear to be particularly worrisome. As a result, many RFBs remained virtually inactive with respect to effective fisheries management.
Source & ©: FAO "The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2004"
Part 1: World review of fisheries and aquaculture, The changing role of regional bodies in decision-making 
7.1.2 Situation after the UNCED
The source document for this Digest states:
In the 1990s, fuelled by growing awareness of the scarcity of fishery resources, the absence of broad international agreement on the management authority of RFBs began to receive increasing attention. The need for strengthened fisheries governance through RFBs became a pressing issue and it was acknowledged that, to be effective, RFBs needed clear mandates to manage the fishery resources in their convention areas in full conformity with international law. In this connection, a number of post-UNCED fisheries instruments were adopted by the international community; these included the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, and the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
The strengthened conservation and management roles of RFBs, foreshadowed by the post-UNCED instruments and accompanying public demands for accountability and transparency, brought with them the need for an effective decision-making process and authority. An FAO High-Level Panel of Experts in Fisheries concluded in a 1998 report that “... the last thirty years were essential to collect information and gain experience on the functioning of RFBs and that the next ten years would be to implement and enforce decisions so that world fisheries resources could be exploited and utilized in a responsible manner”. A few months later, in February 1999, FAO and non-FAO Regional Fishery Bodies, at the first ever meeting of its kind to be convened, stressed that “regional fishery bodies must measure their success by results in the form of favourable trends in or status of stocks and human benefits”.
Generally, it has been observed that RFBs are taking innovative and cooperative action to implement the post-UNCED international fisheries instruments, many in an effort to rebuild the depleted stocks, prevent further decline and to combat IUU fishing. In addition, the stature of RFBs in fisheries governance is growing steadily, as is reflected in the expanding obligations on states to cooperate through RFBs, the number of new RFBs established in recent years and the institutional and constitutional reforms achieved by many RFBs in order to meet current and future needs. RFBs have made important contributions to fisheries governance, inter alia, in the following areas:
- promoting the development of national research and management capacity;
- improving and strengthening data collection, handling and dissemination;
- addressing new issues such as IUU fishing, the management of fleet capacity, the effect of the payment of subsidies and the reduction of bycatch and discards;
- adopting management measures and resolutions relating to such issues as fishing effort reduction, the use of gear, minimum fish sizes, mesh restrictions;
- adopting rules and procedures for boarding, inspection and enforcement;adopting rules and procedures for boarding, inspection and enforcement;
- taking measures to enable the implementation of recent international instruments.
Regrettably, assessments show that strengthened governance of RFBs does not always translate into more effective fisheries management. One of the main constraints faced by RFBs is a lack of willingness on the part of member countries to delegate sufficient decision-making power and responsibilities to RFBs, combined, in some cases, with an inability or reluctance to implement decisions taken by them.
Increased emphasis on decision-making
Article 10 of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement includes the obligation for states to “agree on decision-making procedures which facilitate the adoption of conservation and management measures in a timely and effective manner”. In this context, decision-making procedures are not confined to a voting formula but could involve considerations of a variety of elements. These might include, for principal bodies, clear and timely procedures for a number of actions, the entry into force of recommendations and decisions within an appropriate time period and the inclusion of an objection procedure that is consistent with the criteria of timeliness and effectiveness; for the subsidiary bodies, they might also include timely procedures for making recommendations and giving advice.
Several RFBs have taken concrete action on a wide range of decision-making objectives, functions and processes (the IATTC, for example, see Box 5
). Specific areas include:
- the adoption of criteria that determine the nature or extent of participatory rights for new members, that facilitate the adoption of conservation and management measures and may encourage objectivity;
- the adoption of clear decision-making procedures both for the parent body, usually included in the constitutive instrument, and for the subsidiary bodies, generally detailed in the rules of procedure, to ensure that the recommendations or advice will be timely and effective;
- the institution of an objection procedure, the length of time and specific procedure for which varies among RFBs;
- placing greater emphasis on transparency by adopting, inter alia, procedures for observers that may specify qualifications, application procedure and attendance at meetings;
- focusing on related areas of dispute settlement, particularly the prevention of disputes.
Box 5:
Antigua Convention & strengthening of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna CommissionHowever, it is important to note that, in the absence of agreed performance indicators for self-evaluation, which could conceivably include the evaluation of decision-making authority and process, it is difficult to establish a correlation between strengthening governance in terms of decision-making and effective fisheries management. This issue is further complicated by the fact that decision-making is only one of many interrelated elements of governance by RFBs. The three main elements in decision-making are political will, legal obligations and institutional mechanisms.
That greater demands in terms of decision-making are being placed on RFBs as they move towards becoming bodies with fishery management functions is evidenced by the requirements of post-UNCED international fisheries instruments. While RFBs have not, on the whole, actively reviewed this area of governance, the current decade, which represents a period of consolidation following the adoption of the post-UNCED instruments, could provide a platform for further elaboration of RFB decision-making procedures.
Source & ©: FAO "The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2004"
Part 1: World review of fisheries and aquaculture, The changing role of regional bodies in decision-making
7.2 How is aquaculture development regulated?
- 7.2.1 Sustainable development
- 7.2.2 Policy and governance
7.2.1 Sustainable development
The source document for this Digest states:
Market forces are exerting a strong influence on aquaculture development, particularly that of commercial and industrial aquaculture. Middle-class consumers in many developed and developing countries are becoming increasingly influential and concerned about what they eat and at what cost food is produced, especially in the case of internationally traded products. Major importing regions and countries have begun to set stringent standards and regulations to ensure quality and safety and to reduce the social and environmental impacts of production. Aspects covered by these standards include trade in endangered species, labelling for origin, traceability, the chain of custody and zero tolerance for certain veterinary drug residues. In 2002, fish and fishery products represented the largest category (over 25 percent) of food safety and quality alerts in the EU. Aquaculture products were particularly targeted for veterinary drug residues and monitoring resulted in the banning of imports from several countries. Also, considerable progress has been made in the development and adoption of a range of market strategies –such as product certification, dumping, ethical or fair trade and organic produce – aimed at improving the sector’s public image and gaining consumer confidence.
Progress has also been made in addressing sustainability problems through improved technology –and further progress is expected in the future. For example, improved management practices have successfully limited the spread of pathogens from cultured to wild stocks and made it possible to reduce the use of veterinary drugs in aquaculture production. Nevertheless, there is still a need to regulate access to veterinary drugs in many developing countries. There have also been some advances in establishing effluent standards, improving feed and feeding efficiency and reducing the nutrient output of farms. Research to reduce the dependency on fishmeal in aquafeeds has been ongoing since the 1970s and the results are now being tested with varying degrees of success. Long-term solutions, such as genetic engineering to propagate plants with more suitable profiles of amino acids and fatty acids, are also being considered.
Aquaculture appears to be expanding into offshore marine areas in some parts of the world. Several countries have been proactive in developing appropriate offshore aquaculture and ocean policies, including the control of off-site impacts associated with the discharge of effluent and solid wastes and escapees, even prior to embarking on large-scale development. Pilot projects have also been initiated to gather information to guide policy and development. Operating farms in a more socially and environmentally responsible manner and making a tangible contribution to rural development and poverty alleviation in coastal areas are important challenges for the future, especially in developing countries. Many large-scale industrial production systems are becoming more sustainable, while small-scale practices and integrated systems are continuously adapting to the changing perceptions and demand.
The shift to sustainable practices and development strategies remains a work in progress and a common objective. It requires the concerted support of the public sector through the provision of an enabling environment to attract investment in responsible development and encourage innovation. Inadequate resources, the relatively low importance accorded to aquaculture compared with other priority areas in national development plans, conflicts between sustainable aquaculture development and efforts to improve food security and alleviate poverty, and the high cost of compliance for small enterprises number among the possible reasons for slow progress in the development of an enabling environment for responsible aquaculture in many developing countries.
Source & ©: FAO "The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2004"
Part 1: World review of fisheries and aquaculture
7.2.2 Policy and governance
The source document for this Digest states:
The aquaculture sector continues to expand, diversify, intensify and advance technologically, and still dominates all other animal-producing sectors in terms of growth. The shift in the perception and objectives of aquaculture development is probably one of the important factors behind this growth. Aquaculture is now perceived not only as an activity for meeting producers’food needs, but also as part of the engine for economic growth and achieving diverse societal and environmental goals. As the thinking shifted from aquaculture development to aquaculture for development, so did the laws and policies governing the sector.
In the past, development policies focused mainly on production; in contrast, recent global aquaculture governance and policies have tended to target both the supply and demand side of the sector, with sustainable development (economic, social, environmental, legal and institutional) as the desired outcome. On the supply side, it is now recognized that sustainable aquaculture development must be adequately regulated and protected by integrated and effective legal and administrative frameworks, and that enabling public policies and legislation granting investors, inter alia, legal rights to land supporting the farm and to good-quality water are of the highest priority.
A common feature of emerging aquaculture regulations is the obligation to acquire permits or licences to establish a farm. These give farmers the right to establish and operate aquaculture facilities and at the same time allow governments to monitor the environmental sustainable development of aquaculture and to impose conditions that compel farms to be operated towards this end. Many countries, particularly developed countries, are making efforts to simplify the process of obtaining permits, particularly where several agencies are involved. While permits are often mandatory in developed countries, developing countries have introduced permit requirement policies only recently, probably in response to the emergence of industrial commercial farms.
The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, although voluntary, is having significant influence on aquaculture governance and policy. Several mandatory international instruments also have an impact on aquaculture at the national level, particularly with regard to traded aquaculture products and the movement of live organisms and germplasm. For example, the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) could restrict the exchange of germplasm and movement of genetically modified organisms. Additionally, part of the CBD Programme of Work assesses the consequences of mariculture for marine and coastal biodiversity and promotes techniques that minimize adverse impacts. The WTO has a number of binding agreements which, inter alia, define minimum quality and safety standards for traded aquatic organisms and establish a list of notifiable diseases (the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures). Matters of concern to aquaculture in the WTO Agreement on Trade-related Implications of Intellectual Property Rights include the extent to which the agreement allows for the transfer of environmentally sound technology and the patenting of living organisms. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) calls for certificates of origin for cultured species on the endangered list, issued by the competent national authority, before they can be traded.
At the national level also, aquaculture policies are being established to stimulate development. Many governments have intervened at the macro level by designating aquaculture as a priority area in their economic agendas, defining goals and targets and establishing guiding strategies to achieve them. They have also facilitated reasonable access to credit, provided fiscal incentives and removed institutional constraints (e.g. by establishing effective aquaculture administrative frameworks) (see Box 6
). In many instances, however, aquaculture administration still falls under more than one agency, which often hinders progress. At the micro or farm level, governments have intervened with start-up policies such as financing research, providing stocking material and extension and advisory services, and, in some instances, providing loans. The inability of potential entrepreneurs in infant industries to afford the initial investment through their own equity or to obtain private funding, and their lack of absolute and competitive advantage, are often cited as justifications for government intervention at the farm level. Once aquaculture has taken off, farmers have often found it difficult to expand, forcing governments to intervene through expansionary and export promotion policies such as those targeting the lack of availability and/or high costs of essential inputs (feed, seed and capital). Governments have also encouraged the aquaculture sector through market promotion policies, the development of new value-added products and the regulation of aquatic food safety. In addition to the regulations relating to the drugs and feed used in aquaculture, special regulations have also been issued on the processing and packaging of aquaculture products to prevent health hazards and safeguard consumers.
Source & ©: FAO "The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2004"
Part 1: World review of fisheries and aquaculture
