57
6. Associated species
As mentioned earlier, associated species are those impacted species that are not part of the landed catch. Fisheries for straddling fish stocks, highly migratory fish stocks, and high seas fish stocks, impact other species as a result of: (1) discards, (2) physical contact of fishing gear with organisms (and habitat) that are not caught, and (3) indirect processes. Discards are considered in section 6.1 while physical contact and indirect processes are considered together in section 6.2.
6.1 DISCARDS Much more is known about discards than the other mechanisms through which fisheries impact associated species, although information is still limited. The most recent global information on discards is in an FAO report by Kelleher (2005). It estimates that the rate of discards is about 8 percent for all marine fisheries combined (EEZ and high seas), with large differences by countries, gear types, target species and statistical areas. Shrimp trawling has the highest estimated average discard rate (62.3 percent), but the rates vary widely between fisheries (from 0 to 96 percent). Most shrimp trawling is on stocks confined to the EEZ, although there are some straddling or other high seas stocks of shrimp that are fished. These are likely to be fisheries in relatively deep water for cold-water species, such as the fishery for Pandalus shrimp on the Flemish Cap off Newfoundland and off Labrador in the northwest Atlantic (FAO statistical area 21). The aggregate discard rate for cold/deep-water shrimp fisheries is 39 percent, but where use of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) is mandated (e.g. as in the Greenland, Labrador and Flemish Cap fishery), the discard rate is relatively low, on the order of 5 percent. There are a variety of finfish and invertebrate species caught, including juveniles of target species of many fisheries. Concern about the impact of shrimp trawling discards on finfish fisheries (particularly for flatfish) motivated mandatory use of BRDs in some fisheries. Following shrimp trawling, longline fishing for highly migratory species (primarily tuna and tuna-like species) has the highest discard rate (averaging 28 percent with a range of 0 to 40 percent). Other fisheries for highly migratory species have much lower discard rates: 5 percent for tuna purse seines, 0.4 percent for tuna pole and line fishing. The total discards by these highly migratory species fisheries is estimated as about 700 000 tonnes annually. The portion discarded by high seas fisheries is unknown, but it is likely to be substantial. The most common discard species from longlines is the blue shark. Other sharks, target species damaged by sharks and marine mammals, frigate tuna, kawakawa, Indo-Pacific king mackerel, and narrow-barred Spanish mackerel are also taken and discarded. Longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol), slender tuna (Allothunnus fallai), the butterfly kingfish (Gasterochisma melampus), the wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) and Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus spp.) are here considered associated species as well as the flying fish (Exocoetidae, genera Exocoetus, Cypselurus, Hirundichthys, Cheilopogon and Prognichthys) the sunfish or headfish of the family Molidae, the snake mackerel (Gempylus serpens), escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) and oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus) of the Gempylidae family, are species which are caught close inshore but migrate far offshore. They are all part of the regular bycatch of the tuna longliners together with the lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox and A. brevirostris). Albatross, petrels and other seabirds are also caught by longlines. 58 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
For tuna purse seines, some of the discarded species are bonito, dogtooth tuna, rainbow runner, dolphinfish, jacks, sharks, billfish, mantas and undersize target species (i.e. skipjack and yellowfin tuna). Dolphin are also encircled by purse seines in some areas (see discussion below). As noted above, discards from pole and line fishing are minor. Fisheries for straddling fish stocks and high seas fish stocks are primarily conducted with bottom trawls. The estimated discard rate for trawlers targeting demersal finfish is 9.6 percent (for all fisheries). There is no basis to judge if the rate is likely to be higher or lower for straddling fish stocks and high seas fish stocks than for stocks entirely within EEZs. However, the catch from stocks entirely within EEZs accounts for most of the total catch, such that these EEZ fisheries must account for most of the 1.7 million tonnes of estimated discards by bottom trawlers targeting demersal finfish. Many species are discarded depending on the target species (typically the species composition differs between flatfish and roundfish fisheries), geographic area, and depth. Discards of juveniles of the target species are common, as well as species with low commercial value, such as horse mackerel, long jawed mackerel (Rastrelliger spp.), elasmobranchs (e.g. dogfish and skates), arrowtooth flounders and flathead sole. Many benthic invertebrates are discarded, such as molluscs, echinoderms (e.g. urchins and starfish), crabs, rajids and whelks. Deep-water trawling (often at 1 000 m or more) results in discards of additional species, such as grenadiers, whiptails, rabbitfish, oreos, chondrichthyans (e.g. birdbeak dogfish), batoids and chimaeroids, and cold-water corals (Lophelia sp.). In addition to bottom trawlers, demersal longlining is an important form of fishing in the Southern Ocean in the CCAMLR area (FAO statistical areas 48, 58, 88). The discard rate for this type of fishing is estimated as 7.5 percent (ranging from 0.5 to 57 percent). The overall discard rate in the CCAMLR area is estimated as 12.7 percent, resulting in about 2 000 tonnes annually. Most discards are of finfish and invertebrate species that are abundant and there is little risk that “…their reproduction may become seriously threatened…” (according to Article 5(e) of the FSA, this is one of the standards that apply to species associated with straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks). However, there are some species with abundance so low that even small increases in mortality may raise the risk of being threatened with extinction. In addition, there are species which significant segments of society want protected regardless of their abundance. They are referred to as “charismatic species”. Some charismatic species also have a significant extinction risk. Marine mammals, sea turtles and sea birds have long standing status as charismatic species and/or species at risk (of extinction). More recently, cold-water corals (Lophelia sp.) have gained public attention such that they might also be regarded as charismatic. Some species of cold-water corals might have extremely small geographic ranges (e.g. on the top of a single seamount), which means they may be vulnerable to localized depletion and possibly extinction, as well as being charismatic. However, apparent localized geographic distributions might also reflect under-sampling in other areas where the species might be present. Charismatic species and species at risk of extinction are known bycatch of fisheries for highly migratory fish stocks, straddling fish stocks and high seas fish stocks. Sea turtles and sea birds are a well documented bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species. Sea birds are also taken by longline fisheries for tunas (e.g. as in the southern bluefin tuna fishery) and for demersal species, such as the Southern Ocean demersal longline fishery for toothfish. Concern about sea bird mortality from longline fisheries led the FAO Committee on Fisheries (FAO, 2003d) to adopt an International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (FAO, 2003b). Measures have been introduced in several fisheries to reduce seabird bycatch. For example the seabird bycatch reduction programme of CCAMLR Associated species 59
has reduced seabird mortality by 80 percent or more (CCAMLR, http://www.ccamlr. org/pu/E/e_pubs/am/man-ant/p4.htm). Concern about longline bycatch of turtles in fisheries for highly migratory fish stocks prompted FAO to hold both an Expert Consultation (FAO, 2004a) and a Technical Consultation (FAO, 2004b) to consider ways of reducing mortality. Recent experiments aimed at reducing sea turtle bycatch and mortality are promising. For example, changes in hook shape and bait type reduced the catch rate of loggerhead turtles and leatherback turtles by 90 percent and 75 percent in the northwest Atlantic. Some of the Regional Fisheries Bodies with jurisdiction over fisheries that interact with sea turtles have begun to adopt measures to reduce interactions (see the reports of the Expert and Technical Consultations mentioned above). In general, the impact of sea turtle bycatch by longline fisheries for highly migratory fish stocks is unknown, but it could jeopardize some turtle populations that are severely depleted, even if the longline fisheries were not the primary cause of the depletion. Bycatch of marine mammals is known to occur in some trawl fisheries (particularly large high speed pelagic trawls) and to a lesser extent on longlines. It is unclear to what degree marine mammal bycatch by trawlers and longliners occurs in high seas fisheries, but there is probably some. In the case of purse seine fishing for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific, dolphin are intentionally encircled in the nets since they are an indicator of the location of schools of tuna. This practice has resulted in a cumulative mortality of several million dolphins since the 1960, jeopardizing some dolphin species. This led to the negotiation of the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AICDP), which entered into force in 1999, and whose Secretariat is provided by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). The Program reduced drastically the mortality from 132 000 dolphins in 1986 to about 1 500 in 2003. In spite of this success, dolphin populations appear to have been slow to recover (see http:// www.iattc.org/DolphinSafeENG.htm and http://swfsc.nmfs.noaa. gov/PRD/ for more information about the Program and the slow recovery of some dolphin populations). The recent expansion of trawl fisheries to deep water (often at much more than 1 000 m) into areas previously unfished has resulted in the bycatch of cold-water corals (Lophelia sp.), sometimes as boulder size pieces. Rarely has the impact of expanding deep-water trawl fisheries been documented from the initiation of fishing, but for the fishery for orange roughy on the South Tasman Rise straddling the Australian EEZ south of Tasmania, observers estimated in the first year of the fishery that 10 tonnes of coral per tow were brought up. This extrapolates to 10 000 tonnes of coral associated with a catch of about 4 000 tonnes of orange roughy (Anderson and Clark, 2003; Gianni, 2004).
6.2 PHYSICAL CONTACT BY FISHING GEAR WITH ORGANISMS THAT ARE NOT CAUGHT, AND INDIRECT PROCESSES Trawling is the primary type of fishing that results in physical contact between fishing gear and associated species and their habitat. The bycatch of cold-water corals is probably a symptom of a larger impact of trawling as reefs are damaged more extensively than indicated by the corals hauled up in nets. Trawls also come in physical contact with the bottom in areas where reefs are not present and here the affects are less obvious, but ecosystems are altered and species of benthic organisms will be differently affected. Indirect processes affect the growth, survival and reproduction of species that are the target of fisheries, as well as associated species. When fisheries remove fish from populations, food webs are altered. Some species may suffer from the loss of prey; others may benefit from removal of their predators. Species that compete will be affected differently with cascading impacts on other dependent species. 60 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
Alteration of the sea bottom resulting from physical contact by fishing gear probably changes habitat suitability thus indirectly effecting associated species. For example, some species depend on complex “three dimensional” biogenic structures, such as reefs, for shelter from predators. When such structures are destroyed, the species may disappear. Impacts through indirect processes are hard to detect, and even harder to predict, however, they must occur. The International Council for Exploration of the Sea is a good source of information on the ecosystem effects of fishing (for example http:// www.ices.dk/pubs/crr/crr272/CRR272.pdf). Also, the US National Research Council published a report on the effects of trawling on the seafloor (http://www.nap.edu/ catalog/10323.html). 61
7. Straddling fish stocks, highly migratory fish stocks and high seas fish stocks for which no measures have been adopted by regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements
Fisheries on highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species, are all under some form of management. However, the global nature of the fisheries for some highly migratory species, including the high global mobility and interlinks of the fishing fleets and markets, make it more difficult for regional organizations to manage fisheries on these species than it is to manage fisheries that are less global. Unlike fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species, management of fisheries for oceanic sharks and other highly migratory species is spotty and incomplete. The International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks is a non-binding instrument that should guide management of fisheries on oceanic sharks, but it does not implement conservation measures. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) that have jurisdiction over fisheries that interact with oceanic sharks and other highly migratory species (particularly longline fisheries) are aware of bycatch issues, but for the most part, it is unregulated. With the exception of a few species producing large catches (e.g. tunas and swordfish), knowledge of the biology and state of exploitation of highly migratory species (such as billfishes and sailfishes) remains scarce. Knowledge is even more limited for most highly migratory sharks. Fisheries on pomfrets, sauries and dolphinfish are sometimes included in national fishery management plans, either as a component of the plans for other species or on their own, but generally speaking, a more systematic treatment of these species is necessary before it could be said that the fisheries exploiting them are properly managed. Most fisheries on straddling fish stocks are either covered, or in the process of being covered, by existing regional fisheries management organizations, or organizations and arrangements that are in the process of being formed. The situation is more variable for fisheries for high seas fish stocks. For example, NEAFC has jurisdiction over deep- water fisheries (some of which are on high seas fish stocks) of the Northeast Atlantic, whereas there is no management authority with jurisdiction over fisheries for high seas fish stocks of the Indian Ocean.
63
8. State of fisheries for oceanic species based on an historical analysis of catch trends
The state of fisheries for oceanic species (most if not all of which are forming highly migratory, straddling or high seas fish stocks) was assessed using the method developed by Grainger and Garcia (1996) to analyse worldwide historical catch data (updated and expanded in Garcia, de Leiva Moreno and Grainger, 2005). The method had also been applied to the eastern central Atlantic (Garibaldi and Grainger, 2004) and to the Cuban marine fisheries (Baisre, 2000). The model used to analyse the catch trends is based on a simple generalized fishery development model incorporating five phases: (1) Undeveloped: low initial catches; (2) Developing: rapidly rising catches; (3) Maturing: catches reaching and remaining around their historical maximum; (4) Senescent: catches consistently falling below the historical maximum; (5) Recovering: catches showing a new phase of increase after a period of senescence. This approach was applied to historical catch data of oceanic-epipelagic and oceanic-deep-water species as classified by Garibaldi and Limongelli (2003). Data were extracted from the FAO capture fishery production statistics for 1950–2004 (FAO, 2006a). The top “resources” (defined as species by statistical fishing area) were FIGURE 55 Total global catches of marine resources categorized as selected on the basis of catches oceanic-epipelagic, 1950–2004 during 1950–2004 totaling 7 100 000 tonnes or more. The Oceanic epipelagic data referring to landings 6 Top resources analysed of aggregated species were
) Others excluded from the analysis, 5 except where the grouping is confined to a single genus, 4 such as Frigate and bullet tunas
(Auxis thazard and A. rochei). tonnes (million h 3
These top resources accounted Catc for 97 percent of total 2 oceanic-epipelagic catches and for 88 percent of the total 1 oceanic-deep-water catches as 0 can be seen in Figures 55 and 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 56. The species included in the top resources analysed are shown in Table 5. The time series of catches were standardized (rescaled to Mean = 0; Standard deviation = 1) giving equal weight to all resources, independently of their magnitude and variance, to facilitate comparison of their trends and then grouped by shape using the K-Means Cluster Analysis (as implemented in STATISTICA Version 7.1, with default settings and limiting the number of clusters to 6). Based on an analysis of the slope, 64 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
FIGURE 56 the profiles were sliced into Total global catches of marine resources categorized as phases corresponding to the oceanic-deep water, 1950–2004 five stages of development 4 indicated above. The total Oceanic deep water number (and percentage) of resources in each phase were Others Top resources analysed 3 calculated each year, across ) the whole data set. The overall patterns are shown in Figures 57 and 58. An identical 2 analysis was carried out with
h (million tonnes (million h only the species defined as
Catc “highly migratory”; as the 1 results were almost identical to those for the oceanic- epipelagic category they are 0 not presented separately here. 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 The species composition of this oceanic-epipelagic category contains virtually all highly migratory fish species, plus some additional (krill, flying fish and squid) species as indicated in Table 5. Whereas catches of the oceanic-epipelagic resources showed a fairly steady increase during the whole time period (Figure 55), fisheries for oceanic-deep-water resources increased more slowly at first, but then more rapidly from the 1970s onwards (Figure 56). As already pointed out, this is presumably a result of technological developments which allowed fishing in deeper waters, but also because of reduced fishing opportunities in more coastal areas elsewhere (e.g. due to extended jurisdictions and declining resources) which encouraged exploitation in deeper waters. These different historical development patterns are reflected in the comparative analysis of the evolution of the oceanic-epipelagic versus oceanic-deep-water fisheries. The proportion of resources with fisheries classified as “undeveloped” fell to zero by the late-1960s for the oceanic-epipelagic resources (Figure 57) but not until the late-1970s for the FIGURE 57 oceanic-deep-water resources Percentage of the world’s top oceanic-epipelagic marine fishery (Figure 58). By the late- resources in various phases of fishery development, 1950–2004 1960s, more than 50 percent
100% of the oceanic-epipelagic resources had evolved to 90% Oceanic epipelagic mature or senescent stages. 80% Since then, the resources 70% with some room for further 60% Recovering development ranged between Senescent 50% 30 and 55 percent, with Mature 40% about 20 percent classified as Developing senescent. By the early-1980s, 30% Undeveloped the fraction of oceanic deep- 20% water resources with room 10% for further development had 0% declined to about 35 percent, 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85- 90- 95- 00- and during the most recent 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99 04 period 40 percent are classified as senescent, more State of fisheries for oceanic species based on an historical analysis of catch trends 65
TABLE 5 Top species in the categories oceanic-epipelagic and oceanic-deep water which were subjected to cluster analysis
Oceanic-epipelagic Oceanic-deep water
English name Scientific name English name Scientific name
Albacore Thunnus alalunga Argentines Argentina spp. Antarctic krill Euphausia superba Beaked redfish Sebastes mentella Atlantic bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus Black scabbardfish Aphanopus carbo Macruronus Atlantic pomfret Brama brama Blue grenadier novaezelandiae Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus Blue ling Molva dypterygia Blue whiting Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus Micromesistius poutassou (=Poutassou) Black marlin Makaira indica Deep-sea smelt Glossanodon semifasciatus Blackfin tuna Thunnus atlanticus Electron subantarctic Electrona carlsbergi Blue marlin Makaira nigricans Geryons nei Geryon spp. Reinhardtius Common dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus Greenland halibut hippoglossoides European flying squid Todarodes sagittatus Grenadiers nei Macrourus spp. Frigate and bullet tunas Auxis thazard, A. rochei Hector’s lanternfish Lampanyctodes hectoris Indo-Pacific sailfish Istiophorus platypterus Ling Molva molva Japanese flying squid Todarodes pacificus Longspine snipefish Macroramphosus scolopax Japanese flyingfish Cypselurus agoo Orange roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus Jumbo flying squid Dosidicus gigas Patagonian grenadier Macruronus magellanicus Kawakawa Euthynnus affinis Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides Little tunny Euthynnus alleteratus Queen crab Chionoecetes opilio (=Atl.black skipj) Neon flying squid Ommastrephes bartrami Roundnose grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris Northern shortfin squid Illex illecebrosus Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis Silver gemfish Rexea solandri Pacific saury Cololabis saira Silver scabbardfish Lepidopus caudatus Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis Silver warehou Seriolella punctata Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis Southern blue whiting Micromesistius australis Southern bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii Tusk(=Cusk) Brosme brosme Striped marlin Tetrapturus audax Swordfish Xiphias gladius Wellington flying squid Nototodarus sloani Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares 66 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
FIGURE 58 than in any other stage of Percentage of the world’s top oceanic-deep-water marine development. This result fishery resources in various phases of fishery development, reinforces the concern that 1950–2004 deep-water resources are
100% generally more vulnerable to Oceanic overexploitation due to their 90% deep water slow growth, longevity and 80% lower replacement potential. 70% Garcia, de Leiva Moreno Recovering 60% and Grainger (2005) noted that Senescent 50% over two thirds of all resources Mature appear to be either “mature”, 40% Developing “senescent” or “recovering” 30% which underscores the global Undeveloped 20% need to control fishing effort
10% and capacity. It is apparent that this need applies no less 0% 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85- 90- 95- 00- to oceanic, and particularly 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99 04 deep-water species. 67
9. Discussion and conclusions
9.1 STATE OF THE STOCKS The total reported catch in 2004 of highly migratory species is 5.1 million tonnes dominated by catches of tuna and tuna-like species. Fisheries for highly migratory species are important in all oceans and semi-enclosed seas, except for Polar Regions. Fisheries for straddling fish stocks are much more localized, primarily occurring in a few regions where continental shelves extend beyond the 200-m EEZ limit or where the high productivity of the coastal area favour an expanded distribution of coastal stocks into the high seas, or attracts high seas resources into the EEZ. Most of the species that form straddling stocks, also form fish stocks entirely located within EEZs, and some of them may also make up high seas fish stocks. Almost certainly, most of the catch of species that constitute straddling stocks is taken within EEZs, probably mostly from stocks that are not straddling. The Atlantic cod, for example, constitutes a straddling stock species, but most cod stocks are not straddling. Therefore, in the absence of detailed information on the geographical location of the catch, it is not meaningful to report on the total catch of species that form straddling stocks, and there is insufficient data to report on the catch of these species solely for stocks that are straddling. Most fisheries for high seas fish stocks are deep-water fisheries conducted at depths of the order of 1 000 m, or more. The total catch from deep-water species (including species that are more likely to form straddling stocks, such as blue whiting) has increased steeply since the mid-1990s and it was 3.8 million tonnes in 2004, but the recent increase is largely due to blue whiting catches in the Northeast Atlantic. If blue whiting is excluded, catches from deep-water species that are likely to form high seas fish stocks peaked at 1.75 million tonnes in 1998 and have since declined to 1.4 million tonnes in 2004. There is also insufficient data in global databases to distinguish catches from deep- water fisheries or for purely high seas fish stocks from FIGURE 59 those on straddling stocks Summary of the state of exploitation of highly migratory tuna and or those on stocks entirely tuna-like species, highly migratory oceanic sharks, and straddling located in EEZs, unless highly stocks. High seas fish stocks are included with straddling stocks speculative assumptions are since fisheries for these types of stocks cannot be distinguished made. Nevertheless, in the 60% case of deep-water species World overall Tunas and tuna-like and once blue whiting catches 50% are excluded, a much higher Oceanic sharks Straddling stocks proportion of the total catch 40% is probably taken on the high seas than for species that 30% occur as straddling stocks.
The state of exploitation 20% of the fishery resources considered in this report, when 10% it is known, is summarized in Figure 59 and compared with 0% the world overall, as reported U M F O D R State of exploitation in FAO (2005a). The state of exploitation is classified as 68 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
underexploited (U), moderately exploited (M), fully exploited (F), overexploited (O), depleted (D) or recovering (R). Percentages are calculated for stocks for which the state of exploitation can be determined. It is unknown for 73 percent of the stocks considered in this report. For highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species, 30 percent of the stocks are either overexploited or depleted. About 50 percent of the stocks are fully exploited (i.e. near their level of maximum productivity) and exploitation could be increased for about 20 percent of them as they are moderately exploited. The state of exploitation of tuna and tuna-like stocks is very similar to that of the world overall. The state of highly migratory oceanic sharks appears more problematic with more than half of the stocks listed as overexploited or depleted. The state of exploitation for straddling stocks (including high seas fish stocks) is even more problematic than for highly migratory species, with nearly two thirds of the stocks for which the state of exploitation can be determined being classified as overexploited or depleted. In part, this reflects some well-known overexploited and depleted straddling stocks, such as cod stocks of Newfoundland, Canada, that have not recovered after more than a decade of stringent fisheries management measures. It also reflects several deep-water fisheries for species that are known to be vulnerable to overexploitation and depletion, at least locally. However, information on these deep- water fisheries is inadequate to determine the state of exploitation reliably in most cases. Also, it should be understood that information on the state of exploitation for straddling fish stocks and high seas fish stocks is a mixture of information relating to high seas fisheries and EEZ fisheries. The overexploitation and depletion of stocks of these species is not necessarily due to fishing on the high seas. The analysis of the state of fisheries based on catch trends (rather than stock assessments), described in the previous section, indicates that fisheries for epipelagic species (including most highly migratory species) began developing in the 1950s. By the late-1950s, more than half of the fisheries for these species had evolved to at least a mature stage of development. At present, about 70 percent of the fisheries appear as mature or senescent. This conclusion tends to give a less grim picture than the conclusions above based on stock assessments for tuna and tuna-like stocks (79 percent of which appear fully exploited, overexploited or depleted) and oceanic sharks (90 percent of which are fully exploited, overfished or depleted). For oceanic deep-water species, catch trends indicate that the development was somewhat slower than for epipelagic species with more than 50 percent reaching the mature stage or beyond by the early-1960s. At present, 70 percent of the fisheries for oceanic deep-water species have evolved to at least a mature stage, including more than 40 percent which are senescent.
9.2 ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FISH STOCKS AGREEMENT One main objective in reviewing the fisheries for highly migratory species, straddling stocks and high seas fish stocks is to aid in the evaluation of the performance of the FSA. Some issues to be considered in evaluating the FSA are: 1. What are the best estimates of the state (and trends) of the stocks that are likely to benefit from an effective application of the FSA? 2. How does that state (and the underlying trends) compare with those in fisheries that are solely under coastal State jurisdiction? 3. How well do high seas stocks not explicitly covered by the FSA compare with highy migratory species and straddling stocks? 4. Are associated species afforded adequate protection under the FSA? 5. Ultimately, how much added value, in terms of societal objectives (including ecosystem considerations), has resulted from the FSA, and how might it be increased in the future? Discussion and conclusions 69
However, the ability to answer these questions is seriously impeded by two key factors: (1) limitations of available data, and (2) the short time since the FSA came into force. These factors are examined below. The information available on the state and trends of the relevant stocks is very often uncertain and sometimes is completely lacking. Some of the causes of uncertainty are: • There is no global dataset allowing the catch from straddling and high seas stocks to be separated from catch from EEZ stocks of the same species. Separating information on the state and trends of stocks can be even more difficult. • Comparing the state and trends of stocks occurring partially or totally in the high seas with comparable stocks located entirely in areas under national jurisdiction may give some indication of the performance of management under the FSA relative to that under national jurisdiction. Real differences, if any, are likely to be masked, however, by uncertainty in the assessments in both the EEZs and the high seas as well as by interference of pollution and other environmental degradations mostly affecting the EEZs. • Comparing the effects of conventional fisheries for groundfishes, mostly within EEZs (Christensen et al., 2003) with others mostly on highly migratory species (Myers and Worm, 2003; Baum and Myers, 2004) might provide some insight in the matter. However, the shortcomings found in the later studies by experts on highly migratory species (Burgess et al., 2005) have already been mentioned, and it is also noted that the exclusion of large-scale fisheries for herring and mackerel in the analysis of the effect of fisheries within EEZs exagerates the declines in commercially important species. • There may be a tendency for scientists to be particularly precautionary in concluding on the state of species such as sharks or turtles because their life history makes them particularly vulnerable to overexploitation and depletion. • Poor knowledge of stock structure may also distort the assessments in various ways. For example, a local fishery deemed to be overexploited may be exploiting a stock distributed over a much larger area, which is not overexploited over its entire range. Conversely, catches may appear sustained, only because aggregations of multiple stocks and sequential exploitation of separate stock units hides the sequential depletion. • It would be difficult to conduct a meaningful assessment of the full impact of the FSA without social and economic information, the scarcity of which, already well known in EEZs can hardly be overstated in the case of the high seas. • The figures contained in this report (percentage of stocks in various states of exploitation), in addition to the limitations indicated above, relate only to a proportion of the overall “universe” of stocks concerned, of which they are not a statistically representative sample. Read with their caveats, the figures are indeed, part of the “best scientific information available”. Nonetheless, no matter how cautiously and clearly the statements are crafted, they may be used by the media and understood by the unaware readers as representing a comprehensive and accurate “truth”. We know that this is not the case. For instance, in the Indian Ocean, on numerous unexploited seamounts, as well as in deep areas of the Mediterranean beyond 1 000 m (hardly exploited in the past and now banned to trawling by GFCM) there are hundreds of deep-sea/high-sea stocks of unknown size, in virgin state, and they are not accounted for in this report. Conversely, there are stocks that have been likely depleted, e.g. on seamounts, since the early days of deep-sea fishing of which we have no knowledge. There are also, most likely, stocks of associated species significantly affected by high seas fishing to an unknown extent. 70 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
Even if the data limitations described above did not exist, one would not reasonably expect a measurable resource response in the brief time elapsed since the FSA was adopted by the Conference parties in late 1996, and all the more since it entered into force in 2001. It takes time to establish new regional fishery management organizations (a key element of the Agreement) where they do not exist. Translating conceptual objectives and strategic approaches embodied in the Agreement (such as the precautionary approach) into operational protocols, developing global databases, monitoring systems, and adequate national instruments to assist the flag State and port State in facing their responsibility also demands time and resources. Most importantly, stocks do not respond instantly to new conservation measures. For fish stocks that have been overexploited and depleted, the recovery process follows a sequence of regulations that effectively reduce fishing mortality, allowing more fish in the population to survive, grow and reproduce, producing more abundant future generations (environmental conditions permitting). Inevitably, the biological process takes at least a generation or more. The human process may take even more considering the lifespan of the vessels concerned and the rate of capacity-building in many developing countries. As a consequence, rebuilding periods of one or many decades (for very long-lived fish) are to be expected. In some cases, changes in ecosystems not within the scope of the FSA might also significantly delay or even prevent recovery. The slow recovery of several straddling fish stocks in the northwest Atlantic after more than 10 years of very stringent fishery limitations illustrates the intergenerational nature of the rebuilding process and the potential importance of ecosystem changes. In light of these factors, evaluation of the performance of the FSA might focus, as a first stage, on actions taken to ratify and implement the provisions of the Agreement, as necessary steps towards improvements in fisheries and fish stocks. Ultimately, these actions should lead to the long-term conservation and sustainable use of these stocks, which is the objective of the Agreement. With better data and the passing of time, future evaluations should then focus more directly on the concrete outcomes of these actions and assess whether fisheries and fish stocks are better off. During the last decade, since the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) was agreed and since the Fish Stock Agreement was adopted by the UN Conference, many reports have been prepared describing actions that need to be taken to improve fisheries and the ecosystems upon which they depend. These include: FAO Strategies (e.g. to improve monitoring of fisheries status and trends), International Plans of Action, and Technical Guidelines (http://www.fao.org/fi/default.asp). A brief account of some key actions upon which good performance of the Fish Stocks Agreement could be predicated is given below, concluding with some comments on options for conservation and management of high seas fish stocks which are not explicitly subject to the FSA, and ongrowing public concern about fisheries. The key actions include improvements on the available information on stocks and fisheries, the application of the precautionary approach, reducing excess fishing capacity and implementing the ecosystem approach.
9.3 IMPROVING INFORMATION ON FISHERIES AND FISHERY RESOURCES Data describing fisheries (what, where and how much is caught, and how fisheries are conducted including effort by gear type) is the fundamental underpinning of fishery management. Such data is needed for scientific assessments of the state of fish stocks and to estimate sustainable yields. It is also needed to monitor the performance of fisheries and to monitor compliance with regulations on catch, effort, gear type, and time and area fished. Virtually all national and intergovernmental regional fisheries organizations, as well as FAO, require collection and reporting of fisheries data. The Fish Stocks Agreement calls for the collection and sharing of such data. However, there are numerous shortcomings in fisheries data for the following reasons: Discussion and conclusions 71
1. Misreporting – Ironically, fisheries management both depends on fisheries data and it creates an incentive to misreport it. Regulations that set a total allowable catch are notorious for creating an economic incentive for the fishing industry to misreport. While the design of reporting systems and enforcement can counterbalance the incentive for misreporting, for many fisheries it is a serious problem that is undermining scientific advice on fisheries management and the ability to monitor the state of fish stocks. For example, the annual report (http:// www.ices.dk/advice/icesadvice.asp) of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management (ACFM) of the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) points out numerous times uncertainty in scientific advice for fisheries of the Northeast Atlantic resulting from concerns about the quality of fisheries data. The report for cod off Ireland is a particularly good example of types of concern about the quality of fisheries data (http://www.ices.dk/committe/acfm/comwork/ report/2005/oct/cod-iris.pdf). The problem of misreporting is so severe for deep- water fisheries (many of which are straddling stocks or high seas fish stocks) that ACFM concluded that “it is currently not possible to provide advice for specific fisheries for deep-sea species”. The occurrence of misreporting in Europe is common knowledge routinely receiving attention in the popular media. European Union Commissioner, Joe Borg, highlighted the serious nature of the problem of non-compliance related misreporting of catches stating that “Failure to enforce fisheries measures works against the interests of fishermen as it leads to overfishing, depleted fish stocks, smaller catches and shrinking income”. An example of media interest in the problem of misreporting, including Commissioner Borg’s statement is provided in: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9707. Misreporting is not unique to European fisheries. A Canadian government report (http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/nafo_e.htm) addresses it for the NAFO area in the northwest Atlantic. Misreporting of catches from the Southern Ocean area of CCAMLR has also been reported (http://www.asoc.org/Documents/ XXIIICCAMLR/ASOCIllegaltoothfishtradepap.pdf). 2. Important types of data are not collected – For straddling stocks, highly migratory fish stocks, and high seas fish stocks, three key types of fisheries data are lacking for many, if not most, fisheries. One is data on discards. As discussed earlier in this report, mortality from discarding is substantial in tonnage, and it can seriously impact some stocks and species. In some cases, the impact is on species of no interest to fisheries, but there is significant societal concern about some of them (such as marine mammals, deep-water corals, sea turtles, sea birds). Some of these species are endangered. Lack of reliable data on discards probably means that some serious impacts of fishing are overlooked, and conversely, critics of fisheries may suspect or assert that impacts are more serious than they really are. Reliable data is needed to focus attention on the most critical discard issues. A second type of data on fisheries that is rarely collected in a systematic and comprehensive manner is data on social and economic aspects of fisheries. The purpose of fisheries is to generate net benefits for society. Typically, society is interested in revenues, profits, employment, food security, and how these benefits are distributed. Managers are often challenged by difficult conservation decisions in the face of concerns about adverse impact on benefits (particularly in the short term). Yet, they typically have to make such decisions without the benefit of scientific analyses based on reliable social and economic data. Similarly, at the policy level, long-term strategies for fisheries would benefit from social and economic data. The need to collect social and economic data is further supported by the fact that the modern concept of sustainability is understood to be multidimensional, with at least bio-ecological, economic, social and institutional components (FAO, 2002a). Some of the past failures of fishery management can 72 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
be linked to not taking into account the human reactions to the management measures adopted and how they were applied. Many human reactions could have been anticipated if appropriate input from the social sciences had been included in the decision-making process. The third type of data that is difficult to obtain is data on product flow. What happens to fish that are caught in a particular fishery? What is the source of fish products sold in particular markets? Such data would not only be helpful to understand the distribution of benefits from fisheries, but it would greatly assist fishery managers to deal with Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) catches, thus improving the quality of scientific information and enhancing compliance. Some Regional Fishery Management Organizations (e.g. ICCAT, CCAMLR, IOTC) have implemented their own tracking systems in an effort to cope with IUU. FAO recently reviewed experience with trade documentation schemes, including catch certification and catch demonstration (FAO, 2002b). Clearly, a comprehensive approach to tracking fish products would be more efficient and effective. It would also assist with public health concerns that exist for some fish products. 3. Data access and compatibility problems – Not withstanding the limitations noted above, it is common for potentially useful data to exist, but not available to scientists and managers that need it. Particularly for international fisheries that occur on the high seas, data is usually aggregated (in time, space, by gear type, etc.) before being reported to regional fisheries organizations and FAO. These databases are highly aggregated summaries of the actual data that is collected by national and local authorities. Thus, the statistics provided to FAO by its members, allow a distinction between long-distance and “domestic” fishing (i.e. within and close to the member EEZ) but does not allow to distinguish between catches in the EEZ and in the areas adjacent or close to it, i.e. on straddling stocks. There are also issues of compatibility between databases worth considering if new regional or global databases are to be created. Some of these problems could be solved by a new data management architecture of a hierarchy of linked national and regional databases rather than redundant databases of increasingly aggregated summaries at higher levels in the hierarchy. Many of the limitations of current programs for collection of fisheries data have a historical origin. Decades ago, before modern information technology, data collection, management and reporting requirements had to be simple and limited in the extent of data. Also, prior to widespread recognition of the vulnerability of marine fisheries to overexploitation and depletion, there was a reluctance to “burden” the fishing industry with reporting requirements. Lack of concern about conservation also fostered an implicit priority for protecting fisheries information that was asserted to be business sensitive at the expense of data needs for science and management. Today, access to fisheries resources should be understood to come with responsibility to provide the data that is needed for science based conservation and management. It is also suggested that it is time to rethink data collection, management and reporting programs for fisheries in light of modern information technology. In this regard, it is not enough to modernize technology for managing the data that has been traditionally collected. Old “taboos” on the types of data that could/should be collected need to be put aside. The FAO Strategy for Improving Information on the Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries (FAO, 2003a) can serve as the point of departure for reshaping data collection to match today’s needs and opportunities. Of course, scientific assessments of the state of fish stocks and fisheries require more than fisheries data. Research on the biology and demographics of the fishery resources and their relationship to the ecosystems that contain them is also needed. Fishery independent surveys of resource abundance (e.g. statistically designed surveys Discussion and conclusions 73
with standardized fishing gear or acoustics, possibly conducted in cooperation with the fishing industry and other interested parties) are particularly important. For some demersal straddling stocks, such surveys are conducted, such as for straddling cod stocks within the management area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. However, the logistics of conducting resource surveys for many straddling stocks is difficult compared to surveys of more coastal stocks (typically in shallower water). Also, mixing of stocks when they are away from their breeding areas adds to the problem. Research on survey technology and design, as well as cooperation between fishing nations, could improve the situation. For highly migratory species, resource surveys are even more difficult than for straddling stocks, and such surveys are rare. The problem is that it is usually necessary to monitor vast areas, and there are few technology options available for doing so. Again, research on technology and design, and international cooperation, could help. For high seas fish stocks there is another scientific problem that must be overcome. Typically, fisheries for these resources exploit seasonal fish aggregations (e.g. on the peak of a seamount over a period of a few months). Little is known about the turnover rate of fish in these aggregations or how large a fraction of the total population they are. Their geographic range when they are off the fishing grounds is unknown. While it is tempting to assume that these fisheries are exploiting “discrete fish stocks” (a term used by the Fourth Informal Meeting of the States Parties to the FSA, 31 May–3 June 2005, United Nations, New York), the relationship between aggregations (e.g. on nearby or even distant seamounts) is almost always unknown. In some cases, the high seas aggregations may be from the same stock as aggregations that are fished within EEZs, thus making them straddling stocks. For deep-water fisheries on aggregating species, the situation described above poses the following dilemma. Most deep-water species are long lived with low productivity, thus making them more vulnerable to overfishing. In fact, there is ample evidence that aggregations on localized fishing grounds are quickly depleted. However, there is no basis to judge the impact on stocks that exist over unkown geographic areas. Conducting the research necessary to determine stock structure and assess the state of stocks will be difficult and expensive for deep-water species that potentially occupy vast areas. Development of deep-water fisheries without such information is not consistent with the precautionary approach (discussed below), but are the fisheries worth the cost of the necessary research? Is the conservation worth its cost to society? New ways of acquiring the information to manage those fisheries sustainably and new economic accounting rules might be needed to accelerate the rate of progress.
9.4 APPLYING THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 highlighted the importance of the precautionary approach in Principle 15, which stated: “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied… Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement embrace the precautionary approach. FAO (1996) prepared Technical Guidelines for the Code including guidelines for the precautionary approach. The guidelines characterize the approach as prudent foresight taking account of uncertainties and the need to take action with incomplete knowledge. It requires: • consideration of the needs of future generations and avoidance of changes that are not potentially reversible; 74 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
• prior identification of undesirable outcomes and of measures that will avoid them or correct them promptly; • that any necessary corrective measures are initiated without delay, and that they should achieve their purpose promptly, on a timescale not exceeding two or three decades; • that where the likely impact of resource use is uncertain, priority should be given to conserving the productive capacity of the resource; • that harvesting and processing capacity should be commensurate with estimated sustainable levels of resource, and that increases in capacity should be further contained when resource productivity is highly uncertain; • all fishing activities must have prior management authorization and be subject to periodic review; • an established legal and institutional framework for fishery management, within which management plans that implement the above points are instituted for each fishery, and • appropriate placement of the burden of proof by adhering to the requirements above. Article 6 and Annex II of the FSA add specificity to the precautionary approach by calling for stock specific reference points and pre-agreement on actions to be taken if those reference points are violated (e.g. stock size too low or fishing mortality rate too high). Such reference points and pre-agreed actions are often expressed as “control rules” for fishery management, although not all harvest control rules are precautionary. The precautionary aspect depends on how the control rule performs relative to the risk of undesirable outcomes (based on the preponderance of evidence) and the severity of the outcomes. The FSA makes it clear that undesirable outcomes should be avoided. Article 6, paragraph 4 says that “States shall take measures to ensure that, when reference points are approached, they will not be exceeded.” As reported in the UN Oceans Atlas (http://www.oceansatlas.com/world_fisheries_ and_aquaculture/html/govern/capture/precappr/default.htm), the precautionary approach has been widely adopted by fisheries bodies including CCMALR, IPHC, IWC, ICES, NAFO, NASCO, ICCAT, MHLC, SEAFO, and it is being discussed by APFIC, WECAF and GFCM. It is also applied by several countries including the United States of America, Canada, Australia and South Africa. However, the approach is largely limited to biological aspects of fisheries. Application to other aspects of ecosystems and to the other components of sustainability have been less tangible. It is more difficult to formulate the equivalent of fishery control rules for ecosystems, although it is feasible to agree on actions to be taken if there are undesirable changes in ecosystems. As described above, the precautionary approach is at the forefront of current fishery management deliberations. However, the estimated risk taken relative to undesirable outcomes is not well documented for most fishery management decisions. If the actual risk is unknown, decisions must be made based on estimates of risk. Even if it were, managers may or may not have specified the risk that they consider precautionary. The acceptable risk is a management decision that should reflect the severity of the undesirable outcome. The actual degree to which the precautionary approach is being applied is difficult to assess.
9.5 MATCHING FISHING CAPACITY TO FISHERY RESOURCES Historically, under open access conditions, fishing fleets have expanded far beyond the size needed to catch economically the available fishery resources. Restriction of fishing activity by catch limits, effort limits (such as days of fishing allowed), or by other measures have made fishing less efficient but they have not prevented the depletion of fishery resources. Even under strict management to protect the fishery Discussion and conclusions 75
resources, costs for fishing capacity (e.g. vessels) and other inputs to fishing (labour, fuel) are larger than necessary and potential economic benefits are wasted. Fisheries with marginal economic performance cannot absorb short term loses that inevitably become necessary to reduce catches to prevent overfishing, rebuild fish stocks, or to respond to a down turn in fish stocks due to natural variability. Thus, fishery managers are reluctant to reduce catches until there is overwhelming evidence that they must. The tendency to err on the side of short-term economic needs of fisheries instead of long-term conservation and sustainable fisheries leads to overexploitation and further depletion of fishery resources. This phenomenon helps to motivate the precautionary approach, which shifts decisions in the face of uncertainty with the view to improve the balance between development and conservation considerations, particularly when integrated in an ecosystem approach to fisheries. It is, however, much harder to make precautionary decision when there is overcapacity and precautionary decisions aiming at resources protection which do not solve the problem of poor economic performance and social disruption (often resulting in poor compliance) that result from excessive fishing capacity. Widespread recognition of the problem of excessive fishing capacity led FAO to adopt an International Plan of Action (IPOA) for the Management of Fishing Capacity (http://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/static?xml=CCRF_prog.xml&dom=org&xp_ nav=2,3). FAO (2000a) and WHAT (2000) and many other reports highlight the importance of allocating access rights to fisheries if fishing capacity is to match sustainable yields from fishery resources. Without rights, fishing vessels race to catch as large a share of the fishery resource as they can by investing in more and more fishing capacity until fisheries are no longer profitable. This phenomena is known as the “race for the fish.” The theory indicates that when shares of the available fishery resource are allocated to participants in the fishery, their incentive changes from spending more to catch as much as possible to using the allocated share at the lowest possible cost. Schemes for allocating rights to shares in fisheries such as individual non-transferable or transferable quotas, and territorial use rights or TURF, have been implemented in many countries and are becoming increasingly common. While it is clear that rights-based allocation of shares in fisheries is a key element of managing fishing capacity, it is not clear that international organizations with responsibility for managing fishing on the high seas have the ability to allocate rights effectively. It is common for Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) to allocate shares of the total allowable catch to member countries. However, unless these countries further allocate their shares to individual fishing entities of their country, there remains an incentive among the national concerned to “race for the fish”. In general, RFMOs have not attempted to influence national prerogatives on how they use their allocations. The implication is that those countries that do not remove incentives for the wasteful race for the fish are likely to be pressured by their fishing industry to reject the precautionary approach by giving their short-term economic interests priority over long-term conservation. RFMOs face another challenge in effective allocation of access rights to fisheries: the potential access by non-parties. Typically, RFMOs allocate all of the available shares of the catch to their members. However, non-members may enter into a race for the same fishery resources. Under the doctrine of freedom of the high seas, the potential number of fishing nations that might seek membership, expecting to be allocated a share of the catch is large. This creates de facto a potential “open access” to fisheries that can lead to an international race for the fish with negative consequences. According to the Fish Stocks Agreement, these countries should join the RFMO. The FSA calls on non-members of an RFMO to adhere to the RFMO’s conservation measures, thus providing incentive to join so that they can participate in the fishery management decision making. However, countries will be reluctant to join unless they 76 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
have a reasonable expectation that they will be allocated a share of the allowable catch. This means that existing shares must be reduced proportionately or the allowable catch must be increased (above the scientifically determined quota) to accommodate new members, ultimately devaluing shares in the future and perhaps placing the fishery resource in question at higher risk.
9.6 IMPLEMENTING AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO FISHERIES (EAF) While the Fish Stocks Agreement does not specifically call for an ecosystem approach to fisheries, Article 5 on general principles highlights the importance of ecosystems by requiring States to: • assess the impacts of fishing, other human activities and environmental factors on target stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target stocks; • adopt, where necessary, conservation and management measures for species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target stocks, with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened; • minimize pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, (hereinafter referred to as non-target species) and impacts on associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species, through measures including, to the extent practicable, the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques; Numerous paragraphs of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries also highlight aspects of ecosystems that should be taken into account in fisheries management, such as those described in Annex 1 of the Technical Guidelines for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries in FAO (2003c). According to the guidelines: “The purpose of an ecosystem approach to fisheries … is to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystem.” The guidelines define an ecosystem approach to fisheries as follows: “An ecosystem approach to fisheries strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking into account the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries.” In practice, an ecosystem approach must necessarily evolve from current approaches to fisheries management by taking account of diverse objectives from a broader group of stakeholders, based on increasing scientific information about relationships between fisheries and ecosystems, and applying new approaches to minimize adverse impacts. The EAF requires, inter alia, the adoption of the precautionary approach, matching fishing capacity to fishery resources potential, and improving information on fisheries, resources and ecosystems. There is much evidence that the evolution to an ecosystem approach is underway with precautionary control rules being implemented, new measures to reduce bycatch and habitat alteration from fishing gear, and more access to RFMO by non-governmental organizations representing diverse stakeholders. Undoubtedly, there is more application of an ecosystem approach today than there was five years ago, and there will be even greater application five years from now. However, this does not mean that all stakeholder’s interests and values are being given adequate consideration, that all relevant scientific information is being taken into account, and that managers are properly balancing risk in the short and long term. Since ecosystem objectives reflect compromises between diverse, and sometimes conflicting, human values and are not uniquely determined by science, the ecosystem approach requires a Discussion and conclusions 77
degree of subjectivity and the degree to which it is being applied is largely “in the eye of the beholder.”
9.7 THE ISSUE OF HIGH SEAS FISH STOCKS Straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks are clearly subject to the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, but the applicability of the Agreement to the typical high seas fish stocks (i.e. located entirely in the high seas) is being debated. Without the intent to enter into this debate, comments on some approaches that might be used to put in place conservation and management regimes for these stocks will be made below. Leaving these other high seas fishery resources (the high seas fish stocks) unmanaged would not be consistent with the precautionary approach. The FAO Guideline’s address this point explicitly by stating “all fishing activities must have prior management authorization …”. Leaving these fisheries unregulated is particularly a problem because their low productivity makes them especially vulnerable to overfishing and associated ecosystems are known to be fragile. A straightforward approach is for the countries fishing these high seas fish stocks to negotiate an agreement for new regional fishery organizations to cover these resources. Alternatively, a global agreement might be negotiated to cover all deep-water (generally seamount) fisheries that are not subject to any other competent management authority. However, negotiating new fishery management agreements would be a difficult, time consuming process. Furthermore, if countries interpret the UN Fish Stocks Agreement as not applying to these other high seas fishery resources (i.e. the high seas fish stocks), they will not feel compelled to join new fishery management organizations or adhere to their conservation measures. It is noted, however, that the relationship between high seas fish stocks and stocks of the same species fished within EEZs is unknown in most cases. The possibility that some of these stocks may exchange genetic material, operating de facto as “straddling stocks”, cannot be ruled out a priori. Another approach is for fishing nations to regulate their fishing vessels as required by the United Nations Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management of Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (http:/ / www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/003/X3130m/X3130E00.HTM) consistent with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The preamble of the legally binding Compliance Agreement acknowledges the voluntary Code of Conduct. The Compliance Agreement states that: • “…no Party shall allow any fishing vessel entitled to fly its flag to be used for fishing on the high seas unless it has been authorized to be so used by the appropriate authority or authorities of that Party…” and • “No Party shall authorize any fishing vessel entitled to fly its flag to be used for fishing on the high seas unless the Party is satisfied that it is able, taking into account the links that exist between it and the fishing vessel concerned, to exercise effectively its responsibilities under this Agreement in respect of that fishing vessel.” The Code of Conduct calls on States to: • “…prevent overfishing and excess fishing capacity and should implement management measures to ensure that fishing effort is commensurate with the productive capacity of the fishery resources and their sustainable utilization” and • “Apply a precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic environment, taking account of the best scientific evidence available. The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and non-target species and their environment”. 78 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
The Code of Conduct also calls for prior assessment of the potential impact of new fisheries or introduction of new technologies including prior impact assessments (sections 8.4.7 and 12.11) and the adoption of cautious measures for new fisheries (section 7.5.4). It can be argued that a Nation that allows a vessel flying its flag to fish without being subject to a conservation regime that can reasonably be expected to conserve vulnerable fishery resources and ecosystems, is not fulfilling the spirit of the Compliance Agreement and the Code of Conduct. As an alternative, such Nation could licence vessels flying their flag to only fish in areas subject to (and complying with) appropriate conservation measures such as those agreed by a competent Regional Fisheries Management Organization. When no such organization exist, such Nation might give the authority to fish subject to a prior impact assessment leading to a cautious fishery development plan with adequate monitoring and research. Of course, such unilateral action by individual fishing Nations would be undermined by Nations acting irresponsibly. Another approach that is being actively considered by parties to the Convention on Biodiversity (http://www.biodiv.org) is to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), including areas where fisheries for high seas fish stocks or for more general high seas fishery resources do or could occur. The issue is still open. The United Nations is also considering the option of high Seas MPAs. The validity of this approach partially depends on the intent of the MPAs. If the MPAs are intended to be part of a broad strategy to protect biodiversity, then they would seem to be consistent with the intent of the Convention on Biodiversity. If the intent is specifically to regulate fisheries, then international instruments specifically designed to manage fisheries would be a more appropriate option. However, the boundary between objectives of fisheries management and biodiversity conservation are not sharp, and biodiversity concerns are likely to gain more momentum if widely agreed fishery management norms for responsible fisheries such as those embraced by the Code of Conduct are not fulfilled. For instance, a moratorium on deep-sea bottom trawling has been proposed as an option until adequate conservation measures can be adopted in the high seas, during the United Nations Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process on the Law of the Sea in 2005. Again, this approach is likely to gain momentum if fishery management is deemed to fall short of agreed norms and practices. Clearly, management of high seas fish stocks has a high profile with international policy makers, as evidenced by the attention of the General Assembly of the United Nations. While it is important to manage these fisheries responsibly, it is also appropriate to put them in perspective. Most fishing is within EEZs, and most high seas fishing is subject to the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. On the one hand, fisheries for high seas fish stocks (i.e. those entirely in the high seas) account for a fraction of a percent of catch, revenues and fishing vessels and only a few countries participate in these fisheries. While the habitat impact of these fisheries might be locally intense, the fraction of the seafloor impacted is infinitesimally small. On the other hand, most fishing people are engaged in small-scale coastal fisheries. They impact coastal ecosystems virtually everywhere, except perhaps in polar regions. Legitimate concerns about high seas fish stocks and other fishery resources exploited in the high seas should therefore not divert attention from the serious situation of stocks in EEZs and the efforts required to apply the Code of Conduct to fish stocks and fisheries that need urgent attention, giving particular consideration to small-scale coastal fisheries upon which millions of people are critically dependent. Discussion and conclusions 79
9.8 SCIENCE, DECISION-MAKING AND PUBLIC OPINION During the last decade, world fisheries have received increasing media attention carrying a largely negative image of the sector. Considering the poor state of many of the world resources and fisheries, the recurrent economic crises in the sector and the few but notorious stock collapses, such a negative image is understandable in a global context of growing societal concern for the ecosystem. Because of the tendency of the media and advocates to dramatize the news and events, the public perception is probably worse than the reality. Regardless, public perceptions influence both politicians and the market. Moreover, a negative public image of some fisheries threatens all fisheries, even those which are conducted responsibly. Through the analyses it conducts and publishes and with the support of organized press coverage, the scientific community has actively participated to public awareness- raising, contributing to the negative trend in public opinion. A growing number of scientists also contribute to advocacy, boosted by the increasing financial and media support from environmental non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), enhancing further the public awareness of problems. FAO, as the only global inter-governmental body for fisheries has informed fisheries development and management since the 1960s, establishing the concept of science-based decision in regional fishery commissions. It has significantly contributed to the global scientific and management infrastructures and capacity, particularly in the developing world, since the 1970s, contributing actively to the UNCLOS process. Since the early-1980s, it participated actively in the raising of environmental conscience, e.g. through the UNCED process, contributing in particular to the elaboration of Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 on oceans and coastal areas. The adoption of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries enshrined the notion of “responsibility” in fisheries (with its corollaries of accountability and liability), providing the opportunity of a strong interaction with the process of elaboration of the the United Nations Fish Stock Agreement. The FAO monitoring, analyses, and strong communication about the disturbing state of world fishery resources, the role of overcapacity and subsidies, and the weaknesses in national and regional fisheries governance, have not only contributed to but often triggered policy-makers and public attention, and has done so in a more balanced manner, perhaps more than less institutional advocates. The scientific community and FAO have a duty of informing. Divergences between scientists in areas where uncertainty is high are unavoidable and healthy but they must be resolved for decision to proceed. There is growing concern about the real efficiency of peer reviewing in scientific journals, as well as about the connections of some journals with the private sector, the NGOs or the media and about the consequences on objectivity. There is also concern about the relative lack of formal “professionalization” of the function of fisheries expert which, contrary to the rule in medicine, law or engineering professions, are not governed by corporate forms and norms of governance that can assure the policy-makers and the public that the advice they hear comes from experts with certified competence and practical experience. Ultimately, the public deserves to be able to distinguish members of the discipline giving neutral advice of quality, from those advocating for their client, their sponsors or their own values. Advocates have a societal role to play but the danger is in the confusion of the scientific and advocacy roles. The arena of the high sea/deep-sea resources is one in which the problems addressed above are particularly active. As this paper illustrates, there are good reasons for that: (1) Information is inadequate; (2) Resources and habitats are particularly vulnerable; (3) Governance frameworks are imperfect, characterized by weak flag and port State action, flags of convenience, lack of enforcement power and scarcity of performance assessments of RFMOs, etc. It is therefore an area where risk is high and all the mechanisms mentioned above are at play. 80 The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species
Under such circumstances, it is of utmost importance to start showing positive signs in order to influence public opinion positively accepting the fact that many environmental NGOs and “professional” scientific advocates will be more motivated in convincing their constituency than in demonstrating facts and in describing problems than progress. Progress should become rapidly measurable in institutional terms (adoption of key instruments, mainstreaming them at regional and national levels, etc.) as well as in terms of outcomes with respect to stocks and ecosystem rebuilding. 81
10. References
Anderson, O.F. & Clark, M.R. 2003. Analysis of the bycatch in the fishery for orange roughy, Hoplostethus atlanticus, on the South Tasman Rise. Marine and Freshwater Research, (54): 643–652. Baisre, J.A. 2000. Chronicles of Cuban marine fisheries (1935–1995). Trend analysis and fisheries potential. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 394. Rome, FAO. 26 p. Baum, J.K. & Myers, R.A. 2004. Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters, (7): 135–145. Baum, J.K., Myers, R.A., Kehler, D.G., Worm, B., Harley, S.J. & Doherty, P.A. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic. Science, (299): 389–392. Bonfil, R., Meyer, M., Scholl, M.C., Johnson, R., O’Brien, S., Oosthuizen, H., Swanson, S., Kotze, D. & Paterson, M. 2005. Transoceanic migration, spatial dynamics, and population linkages of white sharks. Science (310: 7 October 2005): 100–103. Buonaccorsi, V.P., Morgan, L., Reece, K.S. & Graves, J.E. 1999. Geographic distribution of molecular variance within the blue marlin (Makaira nigricans): A hierarchical analysis of allozyme, single-copy nuclear DNA, and mitochondrial DNA markers. Evolution, 53(2): 568–579 Burgess, G.H., Beerkircher, L.R., Cailliet, G.M., Carlson, J.K., Cortés, E., Goldman, K.J., Grubbs, R.D., Musick, J.A., Musyl, M.K. & Simpfendorfer, C.A. 2005. Is the collapse of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries, 30(10): 19–25. Carocci, F. & Majkowski, J. 2003. Atlas of tuna and billfish catches. Statistical Collections. FIGIS Data Collection. Available at:
Compagno, L.J.V. 2001. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Volume 2. Bullhead, mackerel and carpet sharks (Heterodontiformes, Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes). FAO Species Catalogue for Fishery Purposes No. 1, Vol. 2. Rome: FAO. 269 pp. Eschmeyer, W.N., Herald, E.S. & Hammann, H. 1983. A field guide to Pacific coast fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, U.S.A. 336 pp. FAO. 1983. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 2. Scombrids of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels, bonitos and related species known to date. B.B. Collette and C.E. Nauen (eds). FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Vol. 2. Rome. 137 pp. FAO. 1985. FAO species catalogue. Vo1.5. Billfishes of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of marlins, sailfishes, spearfishes and swordfishes known to date. I. Nakamura (ed.). FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Vo1.5. Rome. 65 pp. FAO. 1992. Review of the state of world fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Circular, No. 710, Rev. 8. Rome. (Part 1): 114 pp. (Part 2): 28 pp. FAO. 1993. COFI Report of the twentieth session of the Committee on Fisheries. Rome, 15–19 March 1993. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 488. Rome. FAO. 1994. World review of highly migratory species and straddling stocks. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 337. Rome. 70 pp. FAO. 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Rome. 41 pp. Available at:
FAO. 2004b. Technical Consultation on Sea Turtles Conservation and Fisheries. Bangkok, Thailand, 29 November–2 December 2004. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 765. Rome. 31 pp. Available at:
IATTC. 2005. Tunas and billfishes in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2004/Atunes y peces picudos en el Océano Pacífico Oriental en 2004. Fishery Status Report/Informe de la Situación de la Pesquería, No. 3. La Jolla, California. 119 pp. ICCAT. 2005. Report of the 2004 inter-sessional meeting of the ICCAT sub-committee on by-catches: shark stock assessment. Tokyo, Japan, 14–18 June 2004. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 58(3): 799–890. Available at: