CLME-TT/7 Prov
Barbados, February 2007
Original:
English
GOVERNANCE OF TRANSBOUNDARY FISHERIES RESOURCES IN THE
WIDER CARIBBEAN
A discussion paper for the CLME Synthesis Workshop
by
Scott Parsons, Ph.D.
CLME Project Implementation Unit
Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES)
University of the West Indies
Cave Hill Campus, Barbados
February 2007
Contents
1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................. 1
2
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................................ 1
3
FISHERIES GOVERNANCE ......................................................................................................................................... 1
4
CHARACTERISTICS OF FISHERIES RESOURCES IN THE WIDER CARIBBEAN ....................................... 3
4.1 RESOURCE STATUS..................................................................................................................................................... 4
4.2 SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE CARIBBEAN ..................................................................................................................... 5
4.3 NATURE OF THE FISHERIES SECTOR ............................................................................................................................ 6
5
CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR TRANSBOUNDARY FISHERIES GOVERNANCE IN THE WIDER
CARIBBEAN................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
5.1 WECAFC.................................................................................................................................................................. 6
5.2 CARICOM/CRFM ................................................................................................................................................... 7
5.3 OSPESCA................................................................................................................................................................. 9
5.4 ICCAT ....................................................................................................................................................................10
6
GAPS IN ORGANIZATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ....................................................11
7
DESIRABLE COMPONENTS OF GOVERNANCE OF TRANSBOUNDARY FISHERIES RESOURCES IN
THE WIDER CARIBBEAN .....................................................................................................................................................12
8
OPTIONS FOR IMPROVED GOVERNANCE OF TRANSBOUNDARY FISHERIES RESOURCES ............14
8.1 LARGE PELAGICS .....................................................................................................................................................14
8.2 MORE EFFECTIVE REGIONAL GOVERNANCE............................................................................................................15
9
TRANSBOUNDARY FISHERIES GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS IN OTHER REGIONS OF THE
WORLD ......................................................................................................................................................................................17
9.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................................17
9.2 NORTH ATLANTIC....................................................................................................................................................18
9.3 NORTH PACIFIC........................................................................................................................................................19
9.4 TUNAS .....................................................................................................................................................................20
9.5 THE BALTIC SEA......................................................................................................................................................21
9.6 THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA......................................................................................................................................22
9.7 OBSERVATIONS ON RFMOS ....................................................................................................................................24
10
CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................................................................24
11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................................................28
12
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................29
13
FIGURES AND TABLE.................................................................................................................................................32
FIG. 1. THE COUNTRIES OF THE WIDER CARIBBEAN AND THEIR HYPOTHETICAL EEZS.............................................................32
FIG. 2. ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SELECTED ATTRIBUTES OF GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS (ADAPTED FROM LEBEL ET AL 2002)......33
FIG. 3. ANNUAL NOMINAL CATCHES IN THE WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC FROM 1950 TO 2002. SOURCE: COCHRANE ((FAO)
2005) .......................................................................................................................................................................................34
FIG.4. FISH LANDINGS FROM THE CARIBBEAN SEA BY TAXONOMIC GROUP..............................................................................35
FIG. 5. THE CARIBBEAN REGIONAL FISHERIES MECHANISM AND THE HIERARCHY OF DECISION-MAKING WITHIN THE CRFM.
SOURCE: HAUGHTON ET AL 2004.............................................................................................................................................36
TABLE 1. THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF VARIOUS FISHERIES TO CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES AND THEIR STATE OF EXPLOITATION
(SEE TEXT FOR DESCRIPTION OF EACH FISHERY TYPE). ILLEGAL FOREIGN FISHING IS INDICATED BY SHADING. SOURCE: MAHON
2002.........................................................................................................................................................................................37
14
APPENDIX I FUNCTIONS OF AN RFMO (ARTICLE 10 OF UNFSA)................................................................39
ii
1 Introduction
The present study focuses on the current arrangements and options for future arrangements
for governance of transboundary fisheries resources in the Wider Caribbean. It was
undertaken as a thematic study to provide background analysis for consideration of fisheries
governance issues in the preparation of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and
development of a proposal for a Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) project for
funding by the GEF/World Bank.
This study examines the characteristics of the Wider Caribbean (Fig.1), and identifies
desirable components for governance of transboundary fisheries resources in this region. It
reviews and assesses current arrangements for governance of transboundary fisheries
resources and identifies gaps in organizational and institutional arrangements. It examines in
some detail selected examples of governance of transboundary fisheries resources in other
regions of the world, and suggests options for improved governance of such resources in the
Wider Caribbean.
2 Methodology
The main source of information for this study, with respect to the Caribbean, was background
documentation provided by, or identified by, various members of the CLME Task Team,
supplemented by a literature search. In addition, various studies on regional fisheries
governance elsewhere in the world were examined. The author also drew on his personal
experience of several regional fisheries organizations, e.g. ICCAT, ICES, NAFO, NASCO
and CECAF.
In addition, several individuals actively involved in Caribbean fisheries governance activities
were consulted, both through in-person interviews and by correspondence.
3 Fisheries
Governance
Humans have been attempting to manage fisheries in one form or another for more than a
century. Indeed, some would argue that community management of fisheries existed in some
societies long before the development of institutionalized management in the 20th century.
In the second half of the 20th century formalized fisheries management approaches became
increasingly prevalent in developed countries. International institutions (regional fisheries
management organizations) were negotiated to deal with the problems created when distant
water fishing nations (DWFNs) began to overexploit the living marine resources on the high
seas(e.g. NEAFC, NAFO, NPAFC, and ICCAT). Declines in many major fish stocks by the
late 1960s-early 1970s precipitated an extensive series of negotiations under the auspices of
the United Nations, which led ultimately to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS 1982).
Prior to the formal agreement on UNCLOS, in the context of a developing consensus on the
concept of the 200 miles exclusive economic zone, many coastal states proclaimed 200 miles
exclusive economic zones or fishing zones from 1976-77 onward. Many of the zones
overlapped , and this prompted the negotiation of bilateral and multilateral agreements to deal
with these situations.
By the 1990s it was apparent that the world fisheries were under increased pressure and
overfishing or overexploitation of fish stocks was common, both inside and outside the newly
established 200 miles zones. The sustainability of marine living resources was under severe
threat. Renewed activity on the international scene led to new initiatives -- the United
Nations Highly Migratory and Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement of 1995(UNFA), the
voluntary FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the FAO Compliance Agreement,
and International Plans of Action to address issues such as Illegal, Unregulated and
Unreported Fisheries(IUU).
While this was occurring on the international scene, on the local scale there were increasing
initiatives in many countries to introduce co -management and community arrangements with
an emphasis on the involvement of small-scale fishers and artisanal fisheries. Numerous
academic papers document this move to the local scale of management, e.g. Berkes et al
(2001).
Over the past decade, the term "fisheries governance" has increasingly been used in place of
"fisheries management." As Sissenwine and Mace (1999) observed, fisheries management
and fisheries governance are commonly thought of as synonymous but governance is a
broader term. A simple definition of governance is the system of "formal and/or informal
rules, understandings, or norms that influence behavior." Young (1992) described governance
as "the structure and processes by which societies share power." In this context, governance
includes laws, regulations, institutions, negotiation, mediation, conflict resolution, elections,
politics, consultation and other decision-making processes. Governance is not the sole
purview of the state through Government, but rather emerges from many actors, including the
private sector and not-for-profit organizations (Lebel et al 2000). Governance can be
formally institutionalized or expressed through subtle forms of interaction or even more
indirectly by influencing the agendas and shaping the contexts in which actors contest
decisions, and determine access to resources.
In this sense, governance is frequently considered to have good attributes such as:
participation, transparency, representation, deliberation, accountability, empowerment, social
justice and organizational features such as being multilayered and polycentric (see Figure 2,
adapted from Lebel et al. 2000).
Olsen et al. (2006) differentiate between governance and management as follows:
"Governance probes the fundamental goals and the institutional processes and structures that
are the basics for planning and decision-making. Management, in contrast, is the process by
which humans and material resources are harnessed to achieve a known goal within a known
institutional structure."
Recently, the " Fish for Life " project has developed a framework that places emphasis on
"interactive fisheries governance." (Kooiman et al. 2005) They use the following definition
of governance:
"Governance is the whole of public as well as private interactions taken to solve societal
problems and create societal opportunities. It includes the formulation and application of
principles guiding those interactions and care for institutions that enable them."
Their work emphasized the diversity, complexity and dynamics of both the natural and
human systems involved in fisheries and argued that this makes them difficult to predict and
2
control. They also emphasized the need to involve the multiplicity of stakeholders in
fisheries governance. They concluded:
"The only way to cope with complexity, diversity and dynamics, on the one hand, and with
hard choices on the other, is through creating governance systems that are inclusive and
adaptive through learning with a solid foundation of principles to help with navigation."
This paper examines the extent of transboundary fisheries governance challenges in the
Caribbean and options for addressing these. The focus is on structures and institutions
because the mandate was to examine transboundary issues, rather than issues at the national
or local levels. Having examined what is meant by fisheries governance generally, we will
now examine first, the Caribbean fisheries resources, their characteristics, and then examine
selected arrangements for governance of transboundary fisheries resources elsewhere in the
world, such arrangements in the Caribbean, any gaps, and options for improved governance
of Caribbean transboundary fisheries resources.
4 Characteristics
of
fisheries resources in the Wider Caribbean
The Wider Caribbean extends from the Southeast coast of the United States to the Northeast
coast of South America, including the Guianas and Brazil. Major subdivisions include the
Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, as well as the Southeast coast of the United States and
the Northeast coast of South America. The region is geographically one of the most complex
regions in the world. It is divided into a number of deep ocean basins, separated by shallow
zones of a large number of offshore banks and the Continental shelf. The major island
groups are the Bahamas and adjacent banks and Islands, which account for half of the Islands
and bank shelf areas; the Greater Antilles (Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Hispaniola)
and the lesser Antilles (Stevenson 1981). (Fig.1)
The area is characterized by clockwise flow of currents. The North Equatorial Current flows
westward just north of the equator and meets with the Guina Current to form a Western
Boundary Current. Where this Boundary Current enters the Western Central Atlantic, it
splits into the Antilles and the Caribbean currents. The Antilles Current flows northwards on
the Atlantic side of the Antilles Islands, eventually joining with the Florida Current. The
remainder of the Western Boundary Current flows through the Eastern Caribbean, mainly
between Barbados and Tobago, with most of the core of the north and westward flowing
Caribbean Current and enters the Yucatán Channel. It then flows through the Yucatan
Channel into the Gulf of Mexico, with flow clockwise through the Gulf and through the
Straits of Florida to become the Florida Current. The Florida Current and the Antilles
Current combine to form the Gulf Stream. The region also is under the influence of runoff
from the major rivers discharging into the area: the Mississippi, Orinoco and Amazon rivers.
The geographic complexity of the region results in a very complex biodiversity, with at least
1172 species of invertebrates, fish and tetrapods occurring in the region. Of these, 987 are
fish species and 23% of the fish are rare or endemic to the region. The Caribbean probably
has the highest species richness in the Atlantic (Cochrane 2005, Smith et al 2002).
According to Cochrane (2005), nominal catches from the region increased from 500,000 tons
in 1950 to a peak of 2.5 million tons in 1984. Catches subsequently declined but showed
some increases in the 1990s to just under 2,000,000 tons in 1994 but have been stable
between 1.5 and 1.7 million tons since then (Fig.3). A significant portion of the landings are
unidentified even to group. The USA averaged over 900,000 tons per year in recent years.
3
Venezuela and Mexico also recorded landings in excess of 100,000 tons per year. The largest
species group is herring, sardines and anchovies. It accounted for over 50% of the average
annual landings between 2000 and 2003. This group is dominated by menhaden fished off
the US coast.
Fishes from seven families dominated the small pelagic catches in the region. These are:
flying fish, herring and sardines, anchovies and anchovetas; jacks, bumpers and scads;
halfbeaks; needlefish and mullett. The group -- miscellaneous coastal fishes -- also makes an
important contribution to the region's catches. This group includes a wide variety of species:
sea catfishes, groupers, sea basses, grunts, sweet lips, snappers, jobfishes, croakers, and
drums. The miscellaneous coastal fish can be subdivided into two broad groups based on
habitat: those occupying areas with soft substrate and those typically occurring over reefs.
There are also important fisheries for snapper on the Brazil-Guinas shelf fished both by local
and foreign fleets.
The catches of the tunas, bonitos and billfishes group have increased over the last three
decades, averaging 87,000 tons during the 1990s, compared with 52,000 tons in the 1970s.
Venezuela accounted for nearly 30,000 tons per year, followed by Mexico and Taiwan. St.
Vincent and the Grenadines recorded average landings of 49,000 tons per year during this
period. The group is divided into two subgroups: the oceanic species, whose distribution
extends beyond the Western Central Atlantic and the coastal large pelagics, whose
distribution is largely confined to the Western Central Atlantic. Of the oceanic species, the
largest catches are for yellowfin tuna with 30,000 tons landed in 2001. The coastal large
pelagic catches are dominated by four species of Scomberomorus: king mackerel; Atlantic
Spanish mackerel; serra Spanish mackerel and cero.
Crustacean fisheries are some of the most valuable in the Western Central Atlantic, in
particular, fisheries for the Caribbean spiny lobster and those for a number of shrimp species.
Landings of spiny lobster averaged around 30,000 tons during 2000 -- 2002. Spiny lobster is
a high-value species. The Bahamas, Cuba, Nicaragua and the United States recorded highest
landings.
We tend to think of large pelagics as shared resources. As Fanning et al (2007) note,
however, reef organisms, lobster, conch, and small coastal pelagics may also be shared
resources by virtue of planktonic larval dispersal. For many species, larval dispersal can last
for many weeks (e.g., conch) or many months (e.g., lobster) and the young can be transported
across EEZ boundaries. These early stages are affected by both habitat destruction and
pollution as well as overfishing. Both improved knowledge and institutional arrangements are
required for sustainable management.
4.1 Resource
status
The United States National Marine Fisheries Service in its 2000 Report to Congress indicated
that of the 57 stocks falling under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries
Management Council the status of 46 (81%) was either unknown or undefined. Of the 179
stocks falling under the jurisdiction of the US Caribbean Fisheries Management Council, the
status of 175 (98%) was unknown or undefined. The state of knowledge is unlikely to be
higher than this in the most other countries in the region.
4
The status of most species of small pelagics is largely unknown. The general understanding
is that they vary from under - to - fully exploited (FAO 1998). Of the coastal demersal fishes,
two grouper species are under rebuilding programs in the Gulf of Mexico and under the
Caribbean Fisheries Management Council. The red snapper and the red drum remain under
rebuilding programs for the Gulf of Mexico. In the US portion of the Gulf of Mexico, and in
the coastal waters of Mexico, the red grouper is considered to be overexploited.
The latest estimates of the status of the groundfish stocks of the Brazil/Guinas shelf and
French Guinea indicate that they are overexploited. According to FAO (1998) it is generally
accepted that the inshore reef and groundfish resources are commonly fully exploited and
some are overexploited. Mahon (1993) went further when he observed: "It is generally
accepted that reef fish resources of the island platforms are extremely overexploited in most
Lesser Antilles countries."
Some countries of the region are interested in expanding their fisheries for large pelagics.
The oceanic large pelagics fall under the mandate of ICCAT. Yellowfin tuna is probably
overexploited. Bigeye tuna is also considered to be overexploited as are bluefin tuna. With
respect to coastal species, the status of Serra Spanish mackerel and Cero is unknown. The
status of king mackerel is uncertain. Dolphinfish is considered to be overexploited.
The Caribbean spiny lobster is listed in Annex III of the Protocol Concerning Specially
Protected Areas and Wildlife (the SPAW protocol) of the Cartagena Convention. Workshops
held under the auspices of WECAF have concluded that in most countries there is an urgent
need to control and/or reduce fishing effort in the lobster fisheries. Assessments of shrimp
indicate that in most cases, the species/stocks are not being biologically overexploited, but
are probably being fished above the economic optimum. However, some stocks, e.g. Gulf of
Paria, are considered to be overexploited. Among molluscs, the Queen Conch is listed on
CITES Appendix II and Annex II of the SPAW Protocol. International trade in the species is
controlled by the national CITES authorities.
4.2
Special features of the Caribbean
The Caribbean Sea is the second-largest semi-enclosed sea in the world. The Wider
Caribbean includes 26 countries and 19 dependent territories of 4 other countries. In the
Caribbean Sea, a subset of the Wider Caribbean, there are 22 independent states and 11 island
territories. There is a common dependence on two products -- fishing and tourism. The
Caribbean states are very dependent on tourism, but fishing is also significant with 200,000
people employed as fishers and an additional 100,000 involved in the processing and
marketing of fish. Assuming that each has five dependents, it has been estimated that more
than 1.5 million people in the Caribbean area rely on commercial fishing for a livelihood
(CARSEA In Press). Fishing is an even more important source of protein.
The Caribbean is characterized by the lack of a unified political authority and a complex
geopolitical composition. There are a series of overlapping regional authorities. This
constitutes a significant barrier to holistic regional marine fisheries governance.
The small island developing states (SIDS) have a particularly high stake in marine fisheries
management, as their ratio of marine to land area or population is significantly higher than for
mainland states (Mahon 1996a). Although the Western Central Atlantic does not support any
of the world's major fisheries and contributes less than 2% of world fisheries landings, the
fisheries are very important to the countries involved. For the Western Central Atlantic
5
landings are in the order of 2 million tons per year. According to new analyses conducted for
CARSEA (CARSEA 2007), fish landings from just the Caribbean Sea increased from about
85,000 tons in 1950 to around 500,000 tons in 1998 and subsequently declined to around
400,000 tons by 2004 (Fig 4). The catch is dominated by the artisanal sardine fishery based
in Venezuela. Sardines, catfish, shrimp and lobsters contribute most to the landed value.
Mahon (2002) examined in detail the status of the marine living resources of the Caribbean.
Space precludes a full treatment here. He summarized the relative importance of various
fisheries to Caribbean countries and their state of exploitation (Table 1). This is useful
background for subsequent discussion of possible options for improved governance of
transboundary fisheries resources.
4.3
Nature of the fisheries sector
Harvesting of fisheries resources in Caribbean countries is primarily artisanal, or small-scale,
using open outboard powered vessels 5-- 12 m in length. Exceptions include the shrimp and
groundfish fisheries of Guyana and Suriname, where trawlers in the 20-30 meters range are
used and the tuna fishery of Venezuela which uses large (> 20 m) long liners and purse
seiners. In some countries there has been a recent trend towards midsize vessels in the 12-15
meter range, particularly for large pelagics, deep slope fishes and lobster and conch on the
offshore banks (Mahon 2002).Many fishers are part-time and make their living from variety
of activities besides fishing, especially where fish resources are seasonal.
5 Current
arrangements
for transboundary fisheries governance in the
Wider Caribbean
The sheer variety of fish and invertebrates occurring in the Caribbean and the lack of
adequate (or complete absence) of data for most species/stocks, combined with the
transboundary nature of most species, pose major obstacles to effective transboundary
fisheries governance. This is further compounded by the geopolitics of the region and the
Spanish/English cultural divide.
Over time some organizations have evolved to deal with certain aspects of fisheries
governance in this region. These include the Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission
of the FAO (WECAFC), CARICOM and its Caribbean regional fisheries mechanism
(CRFM), and OSPESCA which covers Central American countries. On a more general
international level, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT) Atlantic-wide mandate includes large pelagics in the Caribbean. There are a variety
of other economic coordination/governance mechanisms for the wider Caribbean but the ones
mentioned above are the ones with a specific interest in fisheries. In addition to the above
fishery focused organizations there are a number of intergovernmental agencies such as
OECS, CARIFORUM and the ACS with a broad multi-sectoral mandate for sustainable
development.
5.1 WECAFC
The Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission is a regional fisheries body established
under Article VI of the FAO Constitution. The Commission's area of competence is defined
as all waters of the Western Central Atlantic, encompassing the waters off the Southeast coast
of the United States, the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and waters off the Northeast
coast of South America, including part of Brazil.
6
The Commission's mandate includes all living marine resources. The goal of the commission
is to promote international cooperation for the conservation, development and sustainable
utilization of the living marine resources of the WECAF area. The main objectives are to
facilitate the coordination of research, to encourage education and training, to assist member
governments in establishing rational policies and to promote rational management of
resources that are of interest to two or more countries. The Commission is not actively
involved in fisheries management/governance in the region. Responsibility for fisheries
government is left to the member countries. WECAF provides scientific information and can
provide advice upon which governance can be based. The Commission does not have any
regulatory powers and functions only in advisory capacity.
The membership of WECAF is open to all member nations and associate members of FAO.
The present members of the commission are: Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Brazil,
Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, European Union, France, Grenada, Guatemala,
Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua,
Panama, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Spain,
Suriname, Trinidad and tobacco, United Kingdom, United States of America, and Venezuela.
Typically WECAF's work program is implemented through ad hoc working groups based on
geography/ecosystem (e.g. WECAF Working Group on Shrimp and Groundfish Fisheries in
the Brazil/Guinas shelf) or on species (e.g. WECAF Ad Hoc Working Group on Spiny
Lobster .) These working groups have specific terms of reference and are time-bound. The
Commission and its subsidiary bodies are financed and administered by FAO.
The Commission has two subsidiary bodies:
ˇ Committee for the development and management of fisheries in the Lesser Antilles
ˇ The Scientific Advisory Group (SAG)
The SAG acts as an advisory body to the Commission and its ad hoc working groups.
That WECAF serves an important coordinating role is exemplified by the large number of
workshops it has sponsored and reports it has produced over the past five years. But clearly
lacking is the mandate to act as a regional fisheries management organization with
regulatory/management functions. This is discussed further under options for future
governance.
5.2 CARICOM/CRFM
Chakalall et al (1998) identified issues in fisheries governance confronting the Caribbean
community (CARICOM). Haughton et al (2004) described how CARICOM is addressing
these challenges through the establishment of the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism
(CRFM), a regional fisheries body to facilitate closer cooperation for the sustainable
development and conservation of the fisheries resources of the CARICOM countries.
The Caribbean Community and Common Market or CARICOM was established by the
Treaty of Chaguaramas effective August 1973. A revised treaty of Chaguaramas establishing
the Caribbean Community including the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME)
was signed in July 2001.
7
CARICOM replaced the Caribbean free trade association that had been organized to provide
a continued economic linkage between the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean.
Although initially a grouping of former British colonies, CARICOM has officially become
multilingual in practice with the addition of Dutch-speaking Suriname in 1995, and Haiti,
where French and Creole are spoken, in 2002. Currently CARICOM has 15 full members:
Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti,
Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Suriname
and Trinidad and Tobago.
As Haughton et al (2004) described, CARICOM countries realized as early as 1996 that they
needed to respond to the common management challenges they face on the basis of more or
less complete ecological zones, taking into account the natural boundaries of the fish stocks
and associated ecosystems. The major fishery ecosystems are usually not contained within
the individual EEZs of CARICOM's states but rather span their maritime boundaries. Due to
the prevalence of common shelf areas that span the EEZs of countries, the most abundant
fisheries resources in the Caribbean are shared stocks. CRFM had its genesis in the
collaborative effort between CARICOM and Canada beginning in 1991, which launched the
CARICOM fisheries resource assessment and management program (CFRAMP) to promote
sustainable use and conservation of the fisheries resources of CARICOM member states.
Work began in 1996 to define and establish a Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism
(CRFM) as a permanent and sustainable successor to CFRAMP. CRFM was formerly
established by intergovernmental agreement in February 2002.
The overall goal of the CRFM is "to promote sustainable use of fisheries and aquaculture
resources in and among member states by the development, management and conservation of
these resources in collaboration with stakeholders to benefit the people of the Caribbean
region." Three specific objectives were established for the CRFM: (1) the efficient
management and sustainable development of marine and other aquatic resources within the
jurisdiction of member states; (2) the promotion and establishment of cooperative
arrangements among interested states for the efficient management of shared, straddling or
highly migratory marine and other aquatic resources; and (3) the provision of technical
advisory and consultative services to fisheries divisions of member states in the development,
management and conservation of their marine and other aquatic resources.
Membership in the CRFM is open to all CARICOM member states and associate member
states. Beyond this, the ministerial council may admit as an associate member of the CRFM
any State or territory of the Caribbean region that, in its opinion, is able and willing to
discharge its obligations under the intergovernmental agreement. The core structure of the
CFRM consists of three main components: the Ministerial Council, the Caribbean Forum, and
the CRFM Secretariat. The interrelationship among these components and with stakeholders
is depicted in Fig. 5. The establishment of the CRFM obviously represents a positive step
forward on the path to sustainable fisheries within the Caribbean region. Haughton et al
(2004) noted that it was considered more prudent to start with a small group of countries that
had a history of collaboration than with a larger group with less cohesion.
Now that CARICOM has embraced the concept of the Caribbean Single Market Economy,
the next step in the evolution of CARICOM's approach to shared fisheries is occurring.
Negotiations are under way on the development of a common fisheries policy for
CARICOM, analogous in some ways to the European Union's well-known Common
Fisheries Policy. A draft treaty is under discussion. The potential implications of this for
CRFM are discussed by Cruickshank et al (2004). Assuming that this initiative is brought to
8
fruition within the foreseeable future, it will represent concrete progress toward sustainable
use of the shared fisheries resources of the CARICOM countries. Of course, CARICOM
only encompasses a portion of the states and territories in and bordering the Caribbean. So,
by itself, it cannot achieve the level of regional fisheries governance that, at least in theory,
seems desirable.
5.3 OSPESCA
Another organization involved in addressing shared fisheries management challenges in the
Caribbean is OSPESCA. OSPESCA, established in 1995, is the organization for the fishing
and aquaculture sector of the Central America Isthmus. It has seven participating countries:
Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Niaragua, and Panama.
OSPESCA is structured as follows:
ˇ Ministers Council -- political level
ˇ Vice Ministers council -- executive level
ˇ Directors Commission -- technical and scientific level
In December 1999 OSPESCA became part of the General Secretariat of the Central
American integration system (SG-SICA). In 2000 the SG-SICA created the regional fishing
and aquaculture unit (the SICA/OSPESCA unit).
OSPESCA has been involved in promoting harmonization and modernization of legislation
pertaining to fisheries. Five countries already have updated laws --Belize, Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua -- and updating is under way in Honduras and Panama.
SICA/OSPESCA is also pursuing harmonized fisheries management measures for shared
resources including: shrimp, lobsters, Queen Conch and tunas.
In fact, OSPESCA has gone further than that and adopted, in 2005, a Fisheries and
Aquaculture Integration Policy for the Central American Isthmus (Sergio Martinez, personal
communication). This policy incorporates the following principles: sustainability,
precaution, Central American integration, regional responsibility, citizenship participation,
intraregional solidarity, and good neighbours. The policy places emphasis on the need to
strengthen organizations of fishers and users of the resource. It encourages collaborative
research, harmonized closed seasons, use of similar fishing gears and joint management of
shared areas, the consideration of global annual quotas and the numbers of vessels
recommended for the appropriate use of the fisheries resources. The policy also identifies as
a priority the formulation and implementation of action plans under the framework of the
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, specifically: the International Plan of Action to
Reduce the Incidental Capture of Marine Birds in the Longline Fishery; the International Plan
of Action to Prevent and Discourage Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing; the
International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity; and the International
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks.
While implementation of the 2005 policy is still in progress, it is encouraging to see the
commitment of the countries of the Central American Isthmus to tangible collaboration in
management of their shared fisheries resources.
9
5.4 ICCAT
There is another international fisheries management organization whose mandate includes
tunas in the Caribbean. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas (ICCAT) was established in the late 1960s. Its area of competence includes all waters
of the Atlantic Ocean, including the adjacent seas such as the Mediterranean and the
Caribbean. The Commission's responsibilities extend to populations of tuna and tuna-like
fishes, as stipulated in Article IV, (the Scombriformes with the exception of the families
Trichiuridae and Gemplidae and the genus Scomber) and "such other species of fish,
exploited in tuna fishing in the convention area, as are not under investigation by another
international fishery organization."
The large pelagic fishes of the WECAF fishing area are traditionally divided into "offshore
species with oceanic distribution" and "coastal with a regional distribution", e.g. Mahon
(1996b). The first group includes the highly migratory billfishes, tunas and swordfish species
and the second group includes the mackerels, blackfin tuna, Bonito and common dolphin
species.
While the oceanic pelagic species may hold the greatest potential for the expansion of
fisheries, the coastal pelagic species provide most of the present yield, particularly dolphin
fish (Singh-Renton et al, 2003). Fisheries on large pelagics have expanded considerably in
recent years in several countries of the WECAF area. Grenada, St. Lucia and Barbados have
all expanded their fishing effort on these species and Guyana and Suriname have expressed
interest in developing fisheries for large pelagics. Similar trends have been observed in the
non-CARICOM countries of the Caribbean as well. CARICOM has participated in selected
ICCAT activities as an observer since 1991. Recent ICCAT assessments have shown clear
evidence of overexploitation of several major Atlantic tunas stocks (Singh-Renton et al,
2003). Although coastal species also fall under the auspices of ICCAT, they have received
little attention by ICCAT.
Currently there are 43 contracting parties to ICCAT. Membership from the Caribbean region
has grown substantially since 1998. Venezuela has been a member since 1983. Panama
joined in 1998, Trinidad and Tobago 1999, Barbados 2000, Honduras 2001, Mexico 2002,
Niaragua 2004, Guatemala 2004, Belize 2005 and St. Vincent and Grenadines 2006. In
addition, the UK and France remain members on behalf of their overseas territories.
ICCAT applies a wide range of management measures in an attempt to prevent overfishing of
major Atlantic tunas stocks. ICCAT regulations include Total Allowable Catches, minimum
size restrictions, and general effort limitations. The increasing use of TACs and catch quota
allocation among contracting parties has contributed to the surge in membership, as countries
jockey for shares of the allowable catches.
Traditionally ICCAT allocated TACs and national allocations based solely on historical
catches. Certain countries pushed for review of catch allocation criteria in order to recognize
the needs of developing fisheries, developing states and the sovereign rights of coastal states.
To address these concerns, in 1998 ICCAT established an Ad Hoc Working Group on
Allocation Criteria. For discussion of the allocation criteria and their implications for
Caribbean states, see Singh-Renton et al (2003).
At the request of some Caribbean states, the FAO approved the Technical Cooperation
Program (TCP) (project TCP/PLA 10070), Preparation for Expansion of Domestic Fisheries
for Large Pelagic Species by CARICOM countries. This project commenced in 2001 and
10
ended in 2003. The results are reported in FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 464 (Mahon, R.,
and P. McConney, P. 2004 (Ed)). Among other matters this paper addresses options for
improved governance of large pelagics in the Caribbean context.
While there has been input from some Caribbean countries to the current ICCAT structure
and measures, these existing arrangements are inadequate to address the interests and needs
of Caribbean states in the fisheries for large pelagics, oceanic and coastal. For discussion of
options for improved governance arrangements, see section VIII.
6 Gaps in organizational and institutional arrangements
It is clear from the preceding section that current arrangements for governance of
transboundary fisheries resources in the wider Caribbean are inadequate. Apart from the
developing initiatives under CARICOM/CRFM and OSPESCA, there is little focus on joint
management of shared stocks. WECAF provides an umbrella arrangement for coordinating
scientific assessments and information exchange but lacks a management/governance
mandate. ICCAT has a mandate for tunas and tuna like species but this is only being
exercised for the major tuna species on an Atlantic wide basis. There is no appropriate
mechanism to provide coordinated management of the coastal large pelagics, whose
distribution occurs primarily in the Wider Caribbean.
Statistical information on the quantities and species of fish being caught in Caribbean
fisheries is poor. Large quantities of the landings are not identified by species, and there is
doubt about the accuracy of reported landing quantities. Scientific assessment of the status of
Caribbean fisheries resources is inadequate, at best. There are some efforts through WECAF
and CRFM to address the deficiency, particularly through ad hoc working groups and
workshops to assess particular species or the resources in particular regions. Each year
CRFM convenes a regular scientific meeting which reviews the status of stocks and
undertakes scientific assessments. These workshops normally run two weeks and involve
scientists from all CRFM states plus regional institutions like the University of the West
Indies, international organizations like FAO and some selected experts from across the globe
in the subject matter under consideration. The assessments/reviews are usually conducted on
species or groups of similar species (e.g. lobsters and Queen Conch, large pelagic coastal
species, shrimp and groundfish). The reports of the working groups are then discussed in a
plenary scientific meeting for general discussion of the findings and refinement of the
recommendations. (Milton Haughton, personal communication) This scientific process
conducted by CRFM is valuable but of course it only covers fisheries resources under the
auspices of the CRFM. This means there are large gaps/areas where resources are not
adequately assessed except where WECAF fills the void.
In addition to the science-related activities of regional/sub-regional organizations mentioned
above, stock assessment and related science are also being undertaken by some national
institutions. There is a need to make better use of existing information and to share it from
highly centralized points, e.g. USA, Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela, to other countries through
regional initiatives. While overall the lack of adequate stock assessment is a real gap, some
small-scale resources yield too little return to warrant a standard stock assessment. In such
instances, other approaches to management are needed, as suggested by Mahon (1997).
There is also an equally large gap with respect to the assessment and understanding of
fisheries systems in general. This includes the need for social and economic analysis of
fishing and marketing, valuation of fisheries, etc. As pointed out earlier, there is also a need
11
to take ecosystem considerations into account in fisheries management. Addressing this will
require more attention to and studies on the ecosystem aspects of fisheries.
Various authors have noted that fisheries administrations in Caribbean countries vary widely
in levels of staffing and expertise. Chakalall et al (1997) observed: "They often lack the
technical and support staff required to administer and manage their respective fisheries and
act as counterparts for projects financed and partially staffed by external agencies. Small
fisheries administrations will seldom have all the expertise or numbers of staff to address all
areas of fisheries administration, research, management and development."
Another gap at the national level is the lack of well-developed interdepartmental linkages in
fisheries and integrated coastal zone management. Recognizing that the value of the
resources is often limited in relation to the potential costs of science and management,
Chakallall et al (1997) argued that fisheries administrative schemes should be guided by the
value of the resource, in particular:
"In the circumstances fishery managers should explore management approaches which are
less demanding of data and expertise and which rely to a greater extent on management
reference points based on agreement among stakeholders, the precautionary principle and the
guidelines for responsible fishing."
With respect to stakeholder participation, it should be noted that fisherfolk organizations in
many Caribbean countries are relatively weak, and in some countries do not exist at all. This
poses serious structural and operational constraints to their involvement in fisheries
governance at any level. For further consideration of this matter, see the companion thematic
report on stakeholder involvement.
Another deficiency is the lack of resources/human financial and vessels to perform adequate
monitoring, control and surveillance. Many countries lack the capability for effective
enforcement of fisheries regulations. One complication is that widely scattered, small-scale,
world fisheries are particularly difficult to monitor. There are powerful incentives for fishers
to ignore regulations. Seagoing capability to curtail illegal fishing is minimal in most small
or less-developed Caribbean countries. There is potential for reasonable regional
collaboration in MCS activities. Indeed, OSPESCA has undertaken initiatives in this respect
for countries of the Central American Isthmus (Sergio Martinez, personal communication).
A final point is that the existing fisheries governance arrangements do not take account of
broader ecosystem considerations and hence impede progress towards a more holistic
ecosystem-based approach that is needed to fully address broader governance challenges and
achieve full benefits from the Caribbean marine ecosystem.
7 Desirable components of governance of transboundary fisheries
resources in the Wider Caribbean
Given the inadequacies of the fragmented, under-resourced and piecemeal mechanisms
currently in place for governance of transboundary fisheries resources in the Caribbean, what
are some desirable components of an improved governance framework? From the evidence
gathered in this study, the following appear to be key components of an improved governance
framework:
12
ˇ Comprehensive
Current arrangements are fragmented. Any new governance mechanisms should be
comprehensive while allowing for scale-conscious and scale-appropriate sub-mechanisms.
ˇ Transparency
Any new mechanism should be clearly articulated and easily explainable to participants.
ˇ Accountability
There should be clear lines of accountability from stakeholders at the national level and
national governments through to the intergovernmental mechanisms, with provisions for
feedback. Decision-making procedures should be clearly articulated.
ˇ Participatory
There should be appropriate mechanisms for stakeholder involvement from the national level
to the intergovernmental mechanisms.
ˇ Equitable
Equity will be a key issue for those considering whether to participate. Provisions for
decision-making, voting and allocation criteria need to be structured to provide for equity,
both real and perceived.
ˇ Sustainability
Sustainability of aquatic living resources should be the chief goal. Without conservation of
the resource base, sustainable use is not possible. In this connection, the arrangements should
be consistent with and fully take into account the principles and provisions of the major
multilateral agreements such as the Law of the Sea, the United Nations Fish Stocks
Agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena convention.
ˇ Precautionary approach
The precautionary approach (err on the side of caution) should be incorporated as one of the
key principles of any new arrangement. This is particularly relevant for the Caribbean
situation where the poor state of information on catches and the status of stocks make it
doubly important that the decisions taken be cautious. The poorer the information base, the
greater the need for caution.
ˇ Adaptive
Management needs to be adaptive. There should be clear scope for learning by doing and for
testing of concepts through pilot projects, where appropriate.
ˇ Efficient
Any new arrangement should be built on the principle of "maximum bang for the buck." In
other words, the structure should be streamlined, to the extent possible, bearing in mind the
tremendous diversity of fisheries and cultures in the Caribbean, and transaction costs should
be as low as feasible.
13
ˇ Best use of expertise
The arrangement should function in such a manner as to tap into expertise effectively, no
matter where located in the Caribbean.
ˇ Resource scale and diversity
Taking into account resource scale and diversity throughout the Caribbean, any new
arrangement should include provisions for sub-structures that allow decisions to be taken by
those with the greatest interest in, and knowledge of, particular fisheries resources
(geography/species).
ˇ Ecosystem Approach
Any new governance arrangement should make clear provisions for taking ecosystem
considerations into account in fisheries management (Parsons 2005a).
8 Options for improved governance of transboundary fisheries
resources
Based on the available evidence it appears that major change is required in the arrangements
for governance of transboundary fisheries resources in the Wider Caribbean. Chakalall et al
(in press) summarized the problems with the existing fisheries management arrangements
thus:
"Essentially the array of organizations with interest in fisheries management is a mix of
political and technical entities at a variety of geographic scales with affiliations at a variety of
organizational scales. These arrangements were not originally oriented towards regional
level cooperation in governance. However, they do provide some basis for achieving it.
Their current weaknesses are often scale related; their geographic scope is inadequate; their
small size is limiting; the capacity is limited, often comprising only a small Secretariat, and is
often further diluted by a wide range of responsibilities. Equally problematic is that a value
system (tradition/culture) for cooperation and integration is lacking."
It is clear that the current fragmented approach to governance of transboundary living marine
resources in the Wider Caribbean is inadequate and ineffective. Institutional change is
required. More effective regional governance requires new or modified institutions and
processes. Under Article 63 of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, shared and straddling
stocks are treated together. In both cases, the States concerned, whether coastal or distant
water fishing nations, should seek: "either directly or through appropriate regional or
subregional organizations", to agree upon the measures necessary for their conservation and
development.
First, I will address the issue of improved governance for the large pelagics and then the more
general issue of achieving more effective regional governance for other species.
8.1 Large
Pelagics
As described earlier, ICCAT has the mandate with respect to large pelagics (tunas and tuna-
like species) Atlantic-wide, including the Caribbean. In the Mediterranean, the GFCM has a
14
joint working group with ICCAT to address management of bluefin tuna, in particular, in the
Mediterranean. In January 2007 the GFCM agreed to adopt the recovery plan and package of
conservation measures for bluefin tuna adopted by ICCAT at its November 2006 meeting.
FAO (2004) addressed in detail the management of large pelagic fisheries in CARICOM
countries. The large pelagics are usually subdivided into oceanic and coastal groupings. For
oceanic species, the FAO project investigated the need for and modes of direct involvement
in ICCAT. For coastal species, the project identified the need for a regional arrangement.
This could be a subsidiary of ICCAT, or a separate entity with close collaboration if ICCAT
is willing to delegate its responsibilities for coastal species .The FAO study suggested that the
CRFM could play a key role in both aspects. For oceanic species, it could coordinate and
provide technical support for member country participation in ICCAT. For coastal species,
the CRFM could take the lead in establishing a regional arrangement for the species, working
with CARICOM members, other regional fishing countries and distant water fishing nations.
Sing-Renton and Haughton (2004) suggest two alternatives for such a regional arrangement.
One would be to establish an RFMO to coordinate statistics, research and management of
coastal large pelagic resources occurring within the Caribbean. An alternative would be to
establish, perhaps as an interim measure, a Regional Working Group to coordinate research
and assessments of the stocks concerned at the regional level. If this approach were pursued,
a CRFM or WECAF Working Group may serve the purpose. They suggested that the RWG
should report either directly to the ICCAT Small Tunas Working Group or to the ICCAT
Scientific Committee on Research and Statistics. It would be up to ICCAT to decide on
proposed management measures.
8.2
More Effective Regional Governance
Chakalall et al (In Press) suggest three possible alternatives for improving governance of
transboundary fisheries. Their suggestions are:
ˇ A Coordinated Network
ˇ A Single RFMO with Departments
ˇ An All-inclusive RFMO
Each of these options has pros and cons. Following are some comments on these
alternatives.
ˇ Coordinated network
This concept envisages governance being achieved through a network of formal and informal
multilateral agreements for the various resources/regions of interest to particular countries.
The network would seek to establish common principles and practices where appropriate.
Compliance with these principles/practices would be voluntary.
The major shortcoming of this approach is that it assumes a strong will to maintain voluntary
agreements even perhaps in the face of sporadic funding arrangements. The second problem
is that it is difficult to see regional decision-making being achieved under such an informal
network arrangement. Given the current overfished status of many Caribbean fisheries
resources, timely action is required to ensure the sustainable resource base for the future.
15
ˇ An All-inclusive RFMO
This terminology refers to a single unitary standard RFMO with a Secretariat that would
oversee the management cycle for the wide variety of marine resources throughout the
Caribbean region. As we have seen in the discussion on RFMOs around the world, the
normal mode of operation is to apply one process to all resources with all countries involved
in the assessments and decision-making for all resources. One advantage is that it makes the
maximum use of combined scientific/technical expertise. Some have suggested that it
provides for the maximum dominance by larger countries. Assuming one vote per country, I
fail to see why this would necessarily be the case, apart from the normal tendency for larger,
wealthier countries to pressure or offer incentives for support to their smaller neighbours.
ˇ Single RFMO with Departments
Under this option, there would be one overall RFMO but with department/panels for various
subsets of regions or resources. This would allow for different arrangements to be
implemented for different species groups or regions. In essence, these department/panels
could be semiautonomous entities operating under the umbrella of the overall RFMO. One
major advantage of such an arrangement would be flexibility within an overall framework of
principles and practices. The flexibility could extend to financing arrangements, with the
countries being able to opt in or out of the sub mechanisms depending on their interest in and
the perceived benefit of participating in the various components. Department/panels could be
assigned in such a way as to best address issues of geography, ecosystem, resource type and
expertise available.
There are some fisheries in the Caribbean which could perhaps sustain a self-contained
management organization, e.g. the Guinas- Brazil region, where a high-value resource is
geographically concentrated and shared by a few countries. Many transboundary resources
are, however, harvested by small-scale fisheries. This presents a special challenge. Small-
scale fisheries harvest a wide variety of resources from the demersal resources, which have a
transboundary component during early life history, to large pelagics that migrate throughout
the region.
There is a compelling case for a region-wide governance organization (RFMO) with sub-
mechanisms tailored to meet the needs of geography, resources and participants. Designing
and implementing such a regional approach will not be a simple task. One of the major
challenges will be to bridge cultural/historical divides. Another will be to find an appropriate
formula for funding such an arrangement, given the economic disparity between some of the
lesser-developed island states and the larger, wealthier countries of the region. It is clear that
the current system is not sustainable. It is also clear that the Caribbean is a unique semi-
enclosed sea with a high density of independent small states, and hence requires a special
solution tailored to the special characteristics of the Wider Caribbean. Designing and
implementing such a new regional governance mechanism will take a great deal of time,
effort and expertise and political will.
It may well be necessary to pursue this in a step-wise manner, using a coordinated network
approach and pilot projects to set the stage for an eventual fundamental change in regional
governance.
16
9 Transboundary
fisheries
governance arrangements in other regions
of the world
9.1 General
Space precludes an in-depth examination of fisheries governance arrangements for
transboundary fisheries resources in other regions of the world. Brief descriptions are
provided of arrangements in the North Atlantic and the North and South Pacific and for tunas
world-wide. More attention will be given to two other semi-enclosed seas -the Baltic Sea and
the Mediterranean. 1
Sydnes (2001a) provides a conceptual discussion of regional fishery organizations and
identifies three types of such organizations. As mentioned earlier, global fisheries has
emerged as a major issue on the international environmental agenda over the past 15 years.
This has stimulated the development of a number of international instruments pertaining to
the sustainable management of living marine resources. Among these are Chapter 17 of
Agenda 21, adopted by the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, the 1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International
Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, the 1995
United Nations Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks
and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement), and the 1995 FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. All of these agreements place special emphasis on
regional fisheries organizations as being "vehicles of good governance " for the management
of international fisheries. It is worth noting that regions are increasingly viewed as the
appropriate level to cooperate on fisheries issues that cannot be appropriately addressed at the
global or national levels.
The term "regional fisheries organization" describes international organizations with regional
scope, performing scientific, coordinating, or management-oriented functions related to
fisheries. RFOs are usually created in response to specific problems related to regional
fisheries. RFOs are intergovernmental organizations, i.e. the members are sovereign states.
Some RFOs allow for the membership of "regional economic integration organizations", a
terminology developed to recognize the role of the European Union (EU) and its competence
for fisheries policy and management on behalf of its member states (Sydnes 2001a).
Sydnes (2001a) identified 24 RFOs for the purpose of his study. Swan (2004) mentioned
more than 30. She used the terminology regional fisheries body (RFBs). Three main
categories of RFOs or RFBs exist: scientific research organizations, regional coordination
and development organizations, and regional fisheries management organizations. The
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), initiated in 1902, was established
as a scientific research organization with the mandate to promote and encourage marine
research, draw up and organize international marine research programs, and publish and
disseminate the results of its activities (Parsons 2002). The Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)
in the South Pacific, on the other hand, is a regional coordination and development
organization mandated to promote intraregional cooperation and coordination regarding the
harmonization of fisheries management policies relations to DWFNs, surveillance and
enforcement, fish processing and marketing, and access to each other's EEZs. The Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) was established in 1998, as the successor to ICNAF,
1 A more detailed treatment of this subject is available from the author on request.
17
to function as a regional fisheries management organization for straddling fish stocks and
stocks occurring beyond 200 miles in the Northwest Atlantic (Parsons and Beckett 1998).
As Swan (2004) notes, the establishment of 200 miles EEZs and the 1982 UNCLOS
prompted existing RFOs to review and amend their conventions and subsequently led to the
establishment of new organizations with more modern mandates. Of the current more than
30 RFOs, almost half have been established since the Law of the Sea convention was
adopted. The rest of this discussion focuses on regional fisheries management organizations
(RFMOs) established to manage fisheries resources in the traditional sense. The UN Fish
Stocks Agreement of 1995 is the most comprehensive of the international instruments in
defining the role of regional fisheries management organizations. Even before entry into
force of this agreement, provisions of the agreement had been widely used as a benchmark
for state practice.
Article 10 of the Fish Stocks Agreement sets out an extensive list of RFMO functions (see
Appendix I). Chief among these is that states must agree on and comply with conservation
and management measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of fish stocks. States are
also charged with agreeing on participatory rights such as allocation of allowable catch or
levels of fishing effort. With this background established, we will now examine selected
examples from other regions of arrangements for governance of transboundary fisheries
resources.
9.2 North
Atlantic
Excluding adjacent seas (the Baltic and the Mediterranean) and organizations with a trans-
Atlantic or transoceanic mandate (ICCAT and IWC), there are three fisheries management
organizations specific to the North Atlantic -- NEAFC, NAFO and NASCO.
The Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) is the RFMO for the Northeast
Atlantic. Most of the convention area is under the fisheries jurisdiction of NEAFC's
contracting parties but three large areas are international waters and constitute the NEAFC
Regulatory Area. The members are Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland),
the European Union, Iceland, Norway and the Russian Federation. NEAFC manages
fisheries in the Regulatory Area. NEAFC receives its scientific advice from ICES. NEAFC
management measures include the full range from mesh size and fish size, closed seasons and
areas, total allowable catches and their allocation, to the regulation of the amount of fishing
effort and its allocation. The major straddling fish stocks NEAFC regulates include pelagic
redfish, herring, blue whiting, mackerel, haddock and a variety of deep water species. In
2004, about 4 million tons was harvested in the convention area of which 1 million tons was
taken in the regulatory area. In 2006 NEAFC established a Performance Review Panel as a
follow-up to the 2006 UNFA review. The Panel expressed "considerable concern" that the
contracting parties to the convention have in many instances been unable to take the
necessary steps towards effectively implementing the convention by reaching agreed
allocation arrangements in many fisheries. The Panel also found that status of the major fish
stocks in the convention area is "at a critical point" and, unless effective action is taken
promptly, "there is a strong possibility that their future sustainability will be compromised."
The bottom line is that, as it is currently functioning, NEAFC's effectiveness is undermined
by the failure of the coastal states to agree on rational TACs and national allocations for the
major straddling stocks, which occur in the regulatory area as well as in waters under national
jurisdiction.
18
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Convention Area, established in
1979, applies to most fisheries resources of the Northwest Atlantic with the exception of
salmon (which is managed by NASCO), tunas/marlins (ICCAT), whales and sedentary
species. NAFO has 12 members from Central and North America, Europe and Asia. Among
them are four coastal states bordering the convention area: Canada, Denmark (in respect of
Greenland), France (in respect of St. Pierre and Miquelon) and the USA. NAFO has its own
Scientific Council. The Fisheries Commission is responsible for the conservation and
management of fisheries resources of the Regulatory Area outside the Canadian zone and
south of Greenland. It annually decides on NAFO TACs, national allocations and other
fisheries regulations, including monitoring, control and surveillance measures. NAFO started
out with promise but came close to shipwreck many times in the intervening years. There has
been a long record of non-compliance by some members with NAFO's allocations and
technical measures. Most of the groundfish stocks managed by NAFO have been under
moratoria for more than a decade. The widespread overfishing from 1985 onward, with brief
periods of restraint, contributed to keeping the stocks at low levels. The shrimp fishery on
the Flemish cap is proceeding under "wild West" rules. NAFO's contribution to sustainable
management of straddling stocks has been marginal at best. In 2005, the Canadian
government set up an Advisory Panel on Sustainable Management of the Straddling Stocks to
examine the situation and recommend solutions. The Panel concluded that NAFO, as
currently constituted, is an ineffective mechanism for sustainable management of the
straddling stocks (Parsons 2005b; APSS 2005). Major problems identified were the voting
formula, the objection procedure, and the need to rely on flag states for enforcement. Later in
2005 NAFO agreed to launch a reform process. Following the 2006 annual meeting NAFO
issued a press release indicating that it had "made great progress with its ground-breaking
reform agenda."(NAFO 2006) But the devil is in the details and these are still being
negotiated. Whether the so-called "reforms" will remedy the long-standing deficiencies
remains to be seen.
9.3 North
Pacific
In the North Pacific there are two non-tuna RFMOs of interest. One is the North Pacific
Anadromous Fisheries Organization (NPAFC). The NPAFC was established in 1992. The
contracting parties include Canada, Japan, Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the
United States. The primary objective is to promote the conservation of anadromous stocks in
the convention area. The convention area is the waters of the North Pacific Ocean and its
adjacent seas, North of 33° north latitude beyond the 200 miles zones of the coastal states.
The species covered by the convention are as follows: chum, coho, pink, sockeye, chinook,
cherry (all salmon species) and steelhead trout. Essentially the conservation measures under
the convention involve: prohibiting directed fishing for anadromous fish in the convention
area; minimizing, to the maximum extent , the incidental taking of anadromous fish; and
prohibiting the retention onboard of fishing vessels of anadromous fish taken as an incidental
catch during fishing for non-anadromous species. Each party has the authority to board,
inspect and detain fishing vessels of the other parties found operating in violation of the
convention. Only flag state authorities may try the offence and impose penalties. Generally
the NPAFC has been successful in preventing fishing on the high seas of the North Pacific for
anadromous species.
The second international agreement applying to the North Pacific is the Convention on the
Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources of the Central Bering Sea. This
convention was adopted in 1994, following concerns about an extensive distant water fishery
19
that developed in the mid to late 1980s in the high seas enclave (known as the Doughnut
Hole) of the central Bering Sea area, beyond the US and Russian 200 miles zones. The main
objective is to establish an international régime for conservation, management and optimal
utilization of the pollock resource in the convention area. This convention does not provide
for a commission. It does, however, specify the parties will convene an annual conference
and establish a scientific and technical committee. An Annex to the convention sets out the
allowable harvest level. According to this Annex, no fishing is permitted in the convention
area unless the biomass of the Aleutian Basin Pollock stock exceeds the threshold of 1.67
million tons. Above this level and below any biomass level of 2.5 million tons, the Annex
fixes progressive allowable harvest levels. Above 2.5 million tons, the allowable harvest
level is up for negotiation by the parties. Enforcement is the responsibility of the flag states.
All vessels fishing for pollock are required to carry an observer and to be fitted with satellite
monitoring devices. The most recent biomass estimate is less than 500,000 tons, considerably
below the target of 1.67 million tons that would allow for a fishery in the convention area.
Hence, the allowable harvest is zero.
9.4 Tunas
There is a network of RFMOs whose mandate deals with tunas and tuna-like species. We
have already discussed ICCAT which has a trans-Atlantic mandate for large pelagics. In the
Pacific there are two major RFMOs responsible for tunas, the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC) and the recently established Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna
Organization. Tunas in the Eastern Pacific fall under the mandate of the InterAmerican
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). The IATTC, originally established by international
convention in 1950, amended in 2003, is responsible for the conservation and management of
fisheries for tunas and other species taken by tuna fishing vessels in the Eastern Pacific
Ocean. The member countries are: Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Guatemala,
Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Spain, United States, Vanuatu,
and Venezuela. The species covered by the IATTC are: yellowfin and skipjack tunas and fish
used as bait for tuna and other fish taken by tuna vessels. Skipjack are considered to be
abundant. Yellowfin tuna are a lower-level, below the level of biomass that would produce
the MSY. The IATTC also administers the International Dolphin Protection Program. In
establishing conservation and management measures, the IATTC parties are to apply the
precautionary approach and to ensure the conservation and management measures established
for the high seas are compatible with those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction.
In September 2000, coastal states and fishing nations of the Western and Central Pacific
adopted the "Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean." It was the first agreement to be negotiated
on the basis of the UN Fish Stock Agreement following its adoption in 1995. Sydnes (2001b)
analyzes the process leading up to the establishment of the regional fisheries management
régime for the Western and Central Pacific tuna fisheries, the WCPFO. The tuna fisheries in
the Western and Central Pacific are the largest in the world, yielding an annual catch of
around 1.7 millions tons. Four major tuna species are faced: skipjack, albacore, yellowfin
and bigeye. These species migrate extensively throughout the region, straddling the EEZs of
the coastal states and areas of the high seas. On average, 65-70 percent of the tuna catches are
harvested within the EEZs of the coastal states. The majority of the coastal states in the
region are developing Pacific island states. Most have narrow land-based resources and vast
areas of EEZs. Consequently, they rely on the tuna fisheries to develop their economies.
90% of the total catch of tuna in the WCPO is caught by DWFNs. The most important are
20
Japan, Taiwan, the USA in the Republic of Korea (Sydnes 2001b). This convention
establishes the WCPO tuna commission, whose main function is to decide upon conservation
and management measures. These measures include setting and allocating total allowable
catches or levels of fishing effort, and adopting minimum standards for responsible fishing
and technological regulations. Some innovations include novel enforcement measures
including the provisions for boarding and inspection, Port state measures, a vessel monitoring
system (VMS) and an Observer program. This convention goes the furthest so far in
implementing the provisions of the UNFA. It is still too early to assess the success of the
WCPO RFMO in putting in place effective measures for conservation and management of the
major tuna species. But clearly the establishment of this RFMO represents a major step
forward for the SIDS of the South Pacific, which derive major revenue from licensing of
foreign vessels fishing tuna in their EEZs. In this respect, their situation is quite different
from that prevailing in the insular Caribbean where there is much greater diversity of species
in a relatively small area, but no really abundant high-value species to support a regional
fisheries management organization.
Other tuna commissions of interest include the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, the Western
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and the Southern Bluefin Tuna Commission. The Indian
Ocean Tuna Commission is a commission established under Article XIV of the FAO
Constitution. This Commission, unlike WECAF, has management powers. It is mandated to
manage tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean and adjacent seas. The objective is to
ensure conservation and optimal utilization of stocks and encourage sustainable development
of fisheries based on such stocks. Species covered include yellowfin, skipjack, bigeye and
albacore and several other tunas and tuna-like species. The catch of the 16 tuna and tuna-like
species covered by the IOTC have exceeded one million tons annually since 1993. Tunas
represent 85% of this total. This does not include catches by fleets under flags of
convenience that do not usually report their catches. The Indian Ocean differs from the other
areas discussed in that artisanal fisheries take as much as industrial fisheries. There are
currently 24 members and two Cooperating Non-contracting Parties. Of the members,
approximately half are coastal states in the area. There is also on the books a Western Indian
Ocean Tuna Organization (WIOTO), which was signed in 1991 and entered into force in
1992. This convention was developed primarily in response to the perception of the SIDS in
the Southwest Indian Ocean that the existing FAO regional initiatives were European
dominated. The organization is not operative because of financial constraints.
There is also an RFMO for the conservation of the Southern bluefin tuna. The Southern
bluefin tuna is found in open Southern hemispheric waters of all the world's oceans, mainly
between 30° south and 50° south to nearly 60° south. The Convention between Australia,
Japan and New Zealand came into force in 1994. Later the Republic of South Korea and
Taiwan joined and the Philippines, South Africa and the European Union are Cooperating
Non-parties. The Southern bluefin tuna is classified as critically endangered on the IUCN
Red list of Threatened Species. Recently, Total Allowable Catches have been cut in an
attempt to stabilize resource abundance.
9.5
The Baltic Sea
Earlier I discussed the multi-species RFMOs in the North Atlantic. The North Atlantic also
has two adjacent seas, the Baltic Sea in the North and the Mediterranean in the South. I will
deal with these in more detail because both are semi-enclosed seas analogous in some
respects to the insular Caribbean but different in other respects.
21
The Baltic Sea is a semi-enclosed sea adjacent to the Northeast Atlantic. It is strongly
influenced by human induced eutrophication, river run-off, and a lack of rapid exchange with
the Atlantic. Intensive fishing is the primary driving force, with eutrophication second.
More than 200 rivers empty into the Baltic Sea, providing a drainage area approximately four
times larger than the sea itself. The Baltic Sea is a semi-enclosed brackish water area, the
second-largest in the world after the Black Sea. The Baltic Sea supports both marine fish in
high salinity water and freshwater species near the coast. The fisheries catch level averaged
800,000 tons during the 1990s. Small pelagic clupeiods (herring and sprat) constitute almost
80% of the shelf catch. Cod and related species represent the second-largest group.
In the Baltic, fisheries management was undertaken by the International Baltic Sea Fishery
commission (IBSFC) until it was disbanded in 2006. The Helsinki Commission -- Baltic
Marine environmental protection commission (HELCOM) -- carries out management of
environmental issues. ICES provides scientific advice to both these bodies.
The IBSFC during the last 15 years of its existence consistently established Total Allowable
Catches substantially greater than those suggested by the scientific advice. The majority of
the most commercially important fish stocks in the Baltic are classified as "outside safe
biological limits", the result of unsustainable fishing pressure and practices. The total annual
catch of commercially important sea fish stocks in the Baltic increased tenfold in the past
half-century. During the last two decades the effects of overfishing became increasingly
visible. Nearly all commercially important fish stocks -- including cod, wild salmon, herring
and sprat -- are overfished. The catch of cod, for example, declined from the peak of 450,000
tons in the mid-1980s to about 50,000 tons by 1992 and has been around 100,000 tons since
then. Over the last 20 years the stock size of Baltic cod reached its lowest level on record in
1991 and has remained low since then. Industrial fishing for herring and sprat has increased.
Unsustainable fishing practices have also harmed the marine ecosystem through bycatch and
discarding of fish, bottom living organisms, seabirds and marine mammals, and degradation
by bottom trawling of vulnerable habitats. Even when the regulatory commissions have
agreed on remedial action, there is often a lack of political will at the national levels to take
the steps necessary to restore depleted fish stocks and protect marine ecosystems (Thulin and
Andrushaitis, 2003).
One of the regulatory commissions -- the IBSFC -- has been disbanded. This is the result of
the rapid expansion of the European Union into Eastern Europe. Sweden, Finland, Germany
and Denmark were already members of the EU. Recently, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania have also joined. This means eight of the nine countries bordering the Baltic are
now members of the EU. Under these circumstances the EU chose to withdraw from the
IBSFC, thus precipitating its demise. In future, fisheries governance of the Baltic will be
conducted bilaterally between the EU and the Russian Federation. What impact this will
have on resource management remains to be seen.
9.6
The Mediterranean Sea
The Mediterranean Sea is another semi-enclosed sea, adjacent to the Atlantic. It has several
distinct biogeographical units and is bordered by a high number of countries (20) with
differing cultures. Like the Baltic Sea, intensive fishing is the driving force, with
eutrophication second. The Mediterranean has a narrow Continental shelf. The major inflow
into the Mediterranean is nutrient poor, oxygenated Atlantic surface water through the Strait
22
of Gibraltar. Overall, the Mediterranean is a low productivity ecosystem, but it has unusual
biodiversity for a temperate sea (Caddy 1993).
From a fisheries perspective, the Mediterranean is one of the most diverse and stable marine
ecosystems in terms of species and their contribution to the catch. Through the 1990s catches
ranged around one million tons. Clupeiods are the most important species group, yielding
38% of the catch. Miscellaneous coastal fishes account for 18% of the catch and mollusks
16%. Fishing effort has been on the increase and catch rates per vessel have been declining.
Distant water trawlers have fished the less productive Southern shelves for demersal
resources, fishing them at close to the maximum sustainable yield. There have been some
declines, especially in the northern Mediterranean, of fish species and species diversity.
The Mediterranean has 26,000 km of coastline with 132 million inhabitants along that
coastline. Tourism has been increasing, and is of higher economic value than fisheries in
many Mediterranean countries. Tourism is contributing to environmental degradation. The
Mediterranean, situated at the crossroads of Africa, Europe and Asia, has a high diversity of
cultures, countries, political systems and religions.
Transboundary fisheries in the Mediterranean are governed by the General Fisheries
Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). The GFCM was established by an agreement
under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution in 1949. The area of competence of the
Commission is the Mediterranean and Black Seas and connecting waters. In 1997, it was
agreed to change the name from "Council" to "Commission". Until 2004 the GFCM was
financed by the FAO, but under the 1997 agreement it adopted an amendment that provided
for an autonomous budget (this took effect in 2004).
Coastal states in the Mediterranean have not declared extended fisheries jurisdiction and the
Mediterranean for the most part remains a high seas area. With a few exceptions, most states
bordering the Mediterranean have 12 miles territorial seas but no further competence beyond
12 miles. In some areas of the Mediterranean the Continental shelf extends far beyond 12
miles and stocks occurring on the shelves are accessible to fishermen from outside the region.
A wide variety of fishing gears are used in the Mediterranean, including bottom trawls,
dredges, purse seines, surface longline, driftnets and artisanal gear. There are numerous
transboundary species/stocks, e.g. hake, red mullet, striped mullet, blue and red shrimps,
Norway lobsters, anchovies, sardines and dolphinfish. There are also highly migratory stocks
such as the eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna and swordfish. The GFCM cooperates with ICCAT
with respect to the management of bluefin tuna through a joint working group.
Bycatch issues are significant in the Mediterranean, particularly involving sharks and the
juveniles of target species. Mitigation measures include gear restrictions for certain vessels,
limits on bycatch, minimum sizes for fish that may be landed and measures to limit the
fishing effort. The Mediterranean Large Elasmobranch Monitoring Program (MEDLEM)
has a protocol for mitigating shark bycatch. In 2004, ICCAT adopted a recommendation,
which prohibits the catch of Atlantic bluefin < 10 kg in the Mediterranean.
In 2005 the GFCM prohibited the use of towed dredges and trawl fisheries below 1000 m in
order to protect deepwater species. With respect to monitoring, control and surveillance there
are no provisions for observers, nor a VMS system, although these are under discussion.
There is also no provision for at sea boarding inspections as exist in most RFMOs. In 2005
the GFCM adopted a binding recommendation to establish a registration system for vessels >
23
15 m. Vessels not on that list will be considered to be engaged in IUU fishing. The bottom
line, however, is that enforcement in the Mediterranean essentially rests with member
countries.
Beginning in 2003, spearheaded by the EU, initiatives have been launched to reform the
GFCM and to make it a more effective RFMO. The initial focus has been on bringing in
more effective fishing effort limitations, strengthening the scientific basis for fisheries
management decisions, and implementing a compliance régime. At the GFCM's annual
meeting in January 2007, it agreed on a range of new measures to come to grips with
overfishing. Progress was made on fishing effort limitations by type of vessel and gear. The
meeting also agreed on the use of new, more selective types of netting in bottom trawls. The
Commission agreed on a common set of benchmarks for measuring the capacity of fishing
fleets in the region and assessing their impacts on shared fish stocks, the first time such a
unified system has existed in the Mediterranean. The compliance committee of GFCM has
become operational and will work on the development of a control and inspection scheme for
the Mediterranean. The Commission also signed off on new rules for tuna fishing, recently
adopted by ICCAT. These measures include a 15-year recovery plan for bluefin tuna,
starting in 2007 and running through 2022.
9.7
Observations on RFMOs
While some RFMOs are now reforming their structures and procedures in search of more
effective arrangements for governance of transboundary fisheries resources, most RFMOs
have had a chequered record over the past 25 years. Successes are few. From the examples
examined here, it is clear that most RFMOs are still struggling to find their way toward
conservation and sustainable use. Most of the world's living marine resources are either fully
exploited or overexploited and overfishing is a growing global threat. On the other hand, if
there were no RFMOs in place, the status of the world's fisheries resources would probably
be even more precarious.
Major issues with existing RFMOs include: the abuse of objection procedures where these
exist; inadequate compliance mechanisms; reliance on flag state enforcement; ignoring
scientific advice on the status of fish stocks and fishing beyond "safe biological limits"; and
the struggle between those who wish to conserve resources for sustainable use versus those
who prefer to maximize short-term gain.
10 Conclusions
The focus of this paper has been on the nature and extent of transboundary fisheries
governance challenges in the Caribbean and options for addressing these. The Wider
Caribbean is geographically one of the most complex regions in the world. The geographic
complexity of the region results in a very complex biodiversity. One feature of the Caribbean
is the lack of a functional unified political authority. There are a series of overlapping
regional authorities. This constitutes a significant barrier to holistic regional marine fisheries
governance. The small island developing states in the Caribbean have a particularly high
stake in marine fisheries management, as their ratio of marine area to land area or population
is significantly higher than for mainland states.
Although the Western Central Atlantic does not support any of the world's major fisheries
and contributes less than 2% of world fisheries landings, the fisheries there are very
24
important to the countries involved. Harvesting of fisheries resources in Caribbean countries
is primarily artisanal or small-scale. Most of the fisheries resources of the Caribbean are
either fully exploited or overexploited, with some exceptions. The sheer variety of fish and
invertebrates occurring in the Caribbean and the lack of adequate (or complete absence) of
data for most species/stocks pose major obstacles to effective transboundary fisheries
governance. This is further compounded by the transboundary nature of most species, either
in the adult or early life history stages, and the linguistic and cultural divides among the many
states and territories.
Although some organizations have evolved to deal with certain aspects of fisheries
governance in this region, e.g. WECAF, CARICOM/CRFM and OSPESCA, these do not
provide a comprehensive umbrella with a sufficiently broad mandate to provide effective
transboundary governance throughout the Caribbean. While WECAF's geographic scope
includes all waters of the Western Central Atlantic and its mandate includes all living marine
resources, the Commission is not actively involved in fisheries management/governance in
the region. It does not have any regulatory powers and functions only in an advisory
capacity. CARICOM established the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism. CRFM's
mandate includes the efficient management and sustainable development of marine and other
aquatic resources within the jurisdiction of member states. The establishment of the CRFM
was a positive step on the path to sustainable fisheries within the Caribbean but CARICOM
only encompasses a portion of the states and territories in and bordering the Caribbean. By
itself, it cannot provide comprehensive governance of transboundary fisheries resources
throughout the Caribbean. The same is true for OSPESCA whose mandate is more to
promote collaboration among the countries of the Central American Isthmus.
ICCAT is the international fisheries management organization whose mandate includes major
species (tunas) throughout the Caribbean. While the oceanic pelagic species with which
ICCAT concerns itself may hold the greatest potential for expansion of fisheries within the
Caribbean, the coastal pelagic species provide most of the present yield. Although these
coastal pelagic species fall under the auspices of ICCAT, they have received little attention
from ICCAT. Existing arrangements with ICCAT are inadequate to address the interests and
needs of Caribbean states in the fisheries for large pelagics, both oceanic and coastal.
Statistical information on the quantities and species of fish being caught in Caribbean
fisheries is poor. Scientific assessment of the status of Caribbean fisheries resources is
inadequate, at best. Fisheries administrations in Caribbean countries vary widely in levels of
staffing and expertise. Small fisheries administrations lack the expertise and numbers of staff
to address statistics, research and management. Another deficiency is the lack of resources to
carry out adequate monitoring, control and surveillance.
Fisherfolk organizations in many Caribbean countries are relatively weak. This poses serious
structural and operational constraints to their involvement in fisheries governance at any
level. While there is a clear need to involve stakeholders more at local, national and regional
levels, this is difficult to achieve under these circumstances.
Current arrangements for transboundary fisheries governments in the Caribbean are
fragmented. Any new governance mechanisms should be comprehensive while allowing for
scale -conscious and scale -appropriate sub mechanisms. There should be clear lines of
accountability from stakeholders at the national level and national governments through to
the intergovernmental mechanisms, with provisions for feedback. Decision-making
procedures should be clearly articulated. Provisions for decision-making, voting and
25
allocation criteria need to be structured to provide for equity, both real and perceived. Any
new arrangement needs to be cost effective, bearing in mind the tremendous diversity of
fisheries and cultures in the Caribbean. Any new mechanisms should also include provisions
for sub-structures that allow decisions to be taken by those with the greatest interest in, and
knowledge of, particular fisheries resources (geography/species).
A new governance arrangement should incorporate the precautionary approach since the
poorer the information base, the greater is the need for caution. It should also make clear
provisions for taking ecosystem considerations into account in fisheries management since
fish species cannot be properly managed in isolation of each other and without regard for the
marine ecosystems of which they are part. Sustainability of living marine resources has to be
a primary goal. Without conservation of the resources and their habitats, sustainable use is
not possible.
Elsewhere in the world, particularly in the post-UNCLOS and post-UNFSA era, regional
fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) are seen as the mechanisms for good
governance at the regional level. Regions are increasingly viewed as the appropriate level to
cooperate on fisheries issues that cannot be appropriately addressed at the global or national
levels. The UN Fish Stocks Agreement of 1995 is the most comprehensive of the
international instruments in defining the role of regional fisheries management organizations.
Chief among these is that states must agree on and comply with conservation and
management measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of fish stocks. States are also
charged with agreeing on participatory rights, such as allocation of allowable catch or levels
of fishing effort.
An examination of RFMOs around the world indicates that most RFMOs have had a
chequered record over the past 25 years. Successes are few. From the examples examined
here, it is clear that most RFMOs are still struggling to find their way toward conservation
and sustainable use. Most of the world's living marine resources are either fully exploited or
overexploited and overfishing is a growing global threat. The killing power of the world's
fishing fleets far outstrips the capacity of the living resources to sustain them. On the other
hand, if there were no RFMOs in place, the status of the world's fisheries resources would
probably be even more precarious. Many RFMOs are now reforming their structures and
procedures in search of more effective arrangements for governance of transboundary
fisheries resources.
Of the RFMOs examined in this study, two are concerned with the governance of
transboundary fisheries resources in semi- enclosed seas, namely, the Baltic Sea and the
Mediterranean Sea. The International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC), which has
consistently established TACs at levels above those advised by scientists, has recently been
disbanded. It was disbanded because eight of the nine countries bordering the Baltic are now
members of the European Union. Henceforth, governance of transboundary fisheries
resources in the Baltic will be dealt with internally within the EU, or bilaterally with the
Russian Federation. This renders the Baltic situation quite different from that of the
Caribbean.
The Mediterranean Sea has some similarities to the Caribbean. It is bordered by a large
number of countries (20) with widely differing cultures and religions. It is a complex
geopolitical region, with a high diversity of species and fisheries. Transboundary fisheries
governance in the Mediterranean falls under the auspices of the General Fisheries Council for
the Mediterranean (GFCM). Originally established like WECAF as a coordinating body
26
under FAO, it has evolved into a regional fisheries management commission with a
regulatory mandate under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution. Recently, the EU has
spearheaded efforts to turn the GFCM into a more effective RFMO with real teeth and
improved compliance mechanisms. One significant difference between the Caribbean and
the Mediterranean is that the Mediterranean is surrounded by many developed countries that
can afford the cost of a full-fledged RFMO for the Mediterranean.
In theory, WECAF could become an RFMO like the GFCM. This has been discussed in
WECAF numerous times in recent years. It has chosen to remain an advisory body under
Article VI of the FAO Constitution. Nonetheless, it is clear that major changes are required in
the arrangements for governance of transboundary fisheries resources in the Wider
Caribbean. The current fragmented approach to governance is inadequate and ineffective.
More effective regional governance requires new or modified institutions.
One pressing issue is the need for improved governance for large pelagics. For oceanic
species, the mechanisms for direct involvement in ICCAT need to be strengthened so that
Caribbean states can have a more reasonable prospect of securing allocations proportionate to
the contribution the Wider Caribbean plays in the life history of these species. For coastal
pelagic species, there is the need for a regional arrangement. This could be a subsidiary of
ICCAT or a separate entity with close collaboration if ICCAT is willing to delegate its
responsibilities for coastal species to a new Caribbean regional organization designed for this
purpose.
To achieve more effective regional governance for all transboundary living resources in the
Caribbean, three alternatives have been examined in this study. These are:
ˇ A Coordinated Network
ˇ A single RFMO with departments
ˇ An all-inclusive RFMO.
An all-inclusive single unitary RFMO would apply one process to all countries, with all
countries involved in the assessments and decision-making for all resources. This seems both
inappropriate and unachievable for the Caribbean. The geopolitical complexity and diversity
of species and countries require a more nuanced approach.
The other extreme would be a Coordinated Network. Under this scenario governance would
be achieved through a network of formal and informal multilateral agreements for the various
resources/regions of interest. The network would seek to establish common principles and
practices where appropriate. Compliance would be voluntary. One major problem with this
approach is that it would be difficult to achieve regional decision-making under such an
informal network arrangement. Given the current overfished status of many Caribbean
fisheries resources, timely action is required to ensure a sustainable resource for the future. It
is difficult to envisage this being achieved through a network that is a mixture of formal and
informal arrangements.
This leaves the option of one overall RFMO but with departments/panels for various subsets
of regions or resources. This would allow for different arrangements to be implemented for
different species groups or regions. These could be semiautonomous entities operating under
the umbrella of the overall RFMO. One major advantage would be flexibility. Flexibility
could extend to financing arrangements with countries being able to opt in or out of the
27
substructures depending on their interest in, and the perceived benefits of, participating in the
various components. Departments/panels could be assigned in such a way as to best address
issues of geography, ecosystem, resource type and expertise available.
The Caribbean is a unique semi-enclosed sea with a high density of independent small states
and hence requires a solution tailored to the special characteristics of the Caribbean. For the
reasons identified previously, a region-wide governance organization (RFMO) with
substructures/mechanisms tailored to meet the needs of geography, resources and participants
would seem to be the best option to meet the needs of the Caribbean region. Whether this is
practical and achievable remains to be seen but it merits further study. Designing and
implementing such a regional approach would not be a simple task. One of the major
challenges would be to bridge cultural/historical divides. Another would be to find an
appropriate formula for funding such an arrangement, given the economic disparity between
some of the lesser-developed states and the larger wealthier countries of the region.
Designing and implementing such a new regional governance mechanism would take a great
deal of time, effort, expertise and, in particular, political will.
It may well be necessary to pursue this in a step-wise manner, using a co-ordinated network
approach and pilot projects to set the stage for an eventual fundamental change in regional
governance.
In conclusion, whichever option for change seems preferable, it is clear that the current
system of fragmented governance for transboundary fisheries resources in the Wider
Caribbean is not sustainable and that new or modified institutions and processes are
necessary.
11 Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all those who assisted me in this study by providing documentation,
other forms of information, and, in particular, views on Caribbean fisheries and their
governance.
28
12 REFERENCES
APSS. 2005. Report of the Advisory Panel on the Sustainable Management of Straddling
Fish Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Government of
Canada
Caddy, J.F. 1993. Some future perspectives for assessment and management of
Mediterranean fisheries. Scientia Marina(Barcelona) 57:22, 121-130.
CARSEA (In Press). Human Well-Being and ecosystem Services of the Caribbean Sea.
Caribbean Sea Ecosystem Assessment.Coordinating Lead Authors
John B.R. Agard and Angela Cropper.
Chakalall, B., R. Mahon and P. McConney. 1997. Fisheries governance in the Caribbean.
ACP-EU Fish.Res. Rep. (3): 131-163.
Chakalall, B, Mahon R, McConney P. 1998. Current issues in fisheries governance in the
Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Marine Policy 22:2944.
Berkes, Fikret, Robin Mahon, Patrick McConney, Richard Pollnac, and Robert Pomeroy.
2001.Managing small-scale fisheries Alternative Directions and Methods. IDRC. 320 pp
Chakalall, B., Robin Mahon, Patrick McConney, Leonard Nurse and Derrick Oderson (In
Press). Governance of fisheries and other living marine resources in the Wider Caribbean.
Fisheries Research (Submitted)
Cochrane, Kevern. 2005. Western Central Atlantic. Statistical Area 31 in Review of the State
of World Marine Fishery Resources. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 457.
Cruickshank, J., P.A. Murray, T.Phillips, S. Singh-Renton, and L. Straker.2004. Discussion
Paper: Implementing Mechanism for the Common Fisheries Policy and Regime. CARICOM
Fanning, L., R. Mahon, P. McConney and C. Toro. 2007. The Caribbean Large Marine
Ecosystem Project: Governance Framework, Project Structure and Challenges. International
Conference on Ocean Security in the Wider Caribbean.
FAO 1998. Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission Report of the Seventh Session of
the Working Party on Marine Fishery Resources, Belize City, Belize 2-5 December 1997.
FAO Fisheries Report No. 576.
Haughton, M., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Kong, G.A. Mills, A. 2004.Establishment of the
Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism. Marine Policy 28: 351359.
Kooiman, J, Bavinck, M, Jentoft, S, Pullin, R. 2005. Editors. Fish for Life: Interactive
governance for fisheries. MARE Publication Series No. 3, Amsterdam: University of
Amsterdam Press.
Lebel, L., P. Garden, and M. Imamura. 2005. The politics of scale, position, and place in the
governance of water resources in the Mekong region. Ecology and Society 10(2): 18.
29
Mahon, R. 1993. Marine Fishery Resources of the Lesser Antilles. Marine fishery resources
of the Antilles: Lesser Antilles, Puerto Rico and Hispaniola, Jamaica, Cuba. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper No. 326, 98 pp.
Mahon, R. 1996a. Fisheries of small island states and their oceanographic research and
information needs. In Small islands: marine science and sustainable development. Edited by
G. Maul. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. pp. 298322.
Mahon R.1996b. Fisheries and research for tunas and tuna-like species in the Western Central
Atlantic: Implications of the International Agreement on Conservation and Management of
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. FAO Fish Tech. Paper No. 357,
1996. 72pp.
Mahon,R.1997.Does fisheries science serve the needs ofmanagers ofsmall stocks in
developingcountries?Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 22072213(1997)
Mahon, R. 2002. Living aquatic resource management. pp. 143-218. In: I. Goodbody and E.
Thomas-Hope [ed.]. Natural Resource Management for Sustainable Development in the
Caribbean. Canoe Press, UWI, Kingston, Jamaica.
Mahon, R. and P. McConney 2004 [Ed]. Management of large pelagic fisheries in
CARICOM. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No 464, 149 p.
NAFO. 2006. NAFO Reform in Full Swing. 2006 Annual Meeting Press Release
NEAFC. 2006. Performance Review Panel Report of the
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. Volume I: Main Report. 171 pp.
Olsen, Stephen B., Jon G. Sutinen, Lawrence Juda, Timothy M. Hennessey and Thomas A.
Grigalunas. 2006 A Handbook on Governance and Socioeconomics of Large Marine
Ecosystems. University of Rhode Island. 105 p.
Parsons, L. S. 1993. Management of Marine Fisheries in Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 225: 763p.
Parsons, L. S. and J.S. Beckett.1998. NAFO Model of International
Collaborative Research, Management and Cooperation. Journal of Northwest Atlantic
Fishery Science 23:1-18.
Parsons, L.S. 2005a. Ecosystem Considerations in fisheries management: Theory and
practice. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 20(3):381-422.
Parsons, L. S. 2005b. Governance of Straddling Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic: A Review
of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. 78 pp.
Parsons, Scott. 2002. The future of ICES in the 21st century, in: Anderson, E.D. (Ed.) 100
Years of Science under ICES: papers from a symposium held in Helsinki, 1-4 August 2000.
ICES Marine Science Symposia, 215: pp. 605-610.
30
Singh-Renton S, Mahon R, McConney, P. 1993.Small Caribbean (CARICOM) states get
involved in management of shared large pelagic species. MarinePolicy27 (1): 3946.
Singh-Renton, Susan, and Milton Haughton.2004.Options for achieving successful,
sustainable management of large pelagic fish resources in the CARICOM region in
Management of large pelagic fisheries in CARICOM. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No
464:138-142.
Sissenwine, Michael P. and Pamela M. Mace.2003. Governance for responsible fisheries: an
ecosystem approach. In: Responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem Sinclair, M. (ed.)
Valdimarsson, G (ed.):363-390.
Smith, M.L., Carpenter, K.E. & Waller, R.W. 2002. An introduction to the oceanography,
geology, biogeography, and fisheries of the tropical and subtropical Western Central Atlantic. In
Carpenter, K.E. (ed.) 2002. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Vol.1 FAO,
Rome.
Stevenson, D.K. 1981. A review of the marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic
Fisheries Commission (WECAFC) Region. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap.211.134 pp.
Swan, Judith. 2004. Decision-making in regional fishery bodies or arrangements: the
evolving role of RFBs and international agreements on decision-making processes. FAO
Fisheries Circular 95, 93p.
Sydnes, A.K.2001a. Regional fishery organizations: how and why organizational diversity
matters. Ocean Development & International Law 32:349372.
Sydnes, A.K. 2001b. Establishing a regional fisheries management organization for the
Western and Central Pacific. Ocean and Coastal Management 44:787811.
Sydnes, A.K.2001c. New regional fisheries management regimes: establishing the
South East Atlantic fisheries organisation. Marine Policy 25:35364.
Thulin, J. and Andris Andrushaitis. 2003.The Baltic Sea: Its Past, Present and Future.
Proceedings of the Religion, Science & the Environment Symposium V on Baltic Sea
Young, O. R. 1992. The effectiveness of international institutions: hard cases and critical
variables. Pages 160-194 in J. N. Rosenau and E.-O. Czempiel. Editors. Governance without
government: order and change in world politics.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
31
13 FIGURES AND TABLE
o
o
o
o
o
100W
90 W
80 W
70 W
60 W
o
30 N
ATLANTIC
GULF OF MEXICO
OCEAN
USA
Bahamas
Turks and Caicos I
Mexico
irgin IAnguilla
US Virgin I
Antigua and Barbuda
o
Cuba
British V
St. Martin/St. Marten 20 N
Cayman I.
St. Kitts & Nevis
Montserrat
Guadeloupe
Haiti
Dominica
Puerto Rico
Honduras
Jamaica
Dominican
Martinique
Republic
St. Lucia
Barbados
St. Vincent & Grenadines
Grenada
Colombia
Belize
Venezuela
Trinidad & Tobago
o
10 N
Nicaragua
Panama
yana
e
PACIFIC
Gu
OCEAN
Costa Rica
urinam
S
French uiana
G
razil
B
Fig. 1. The countries of the Wider Caribbean and their hypothetical EEZs.
32
Fig. 2. Associations between selected attributes of governance systems (adapted from Lebel
et al 2002)
.
33
Fig. 3. Annual nominal catches in the Western Central Atlantic from 1950 to 2002. Source:
Cochrane ((FAO) 2005)
34
Fig.4. Fish landings from the Caribbean Sea by taxonomic group
Source: Sea Around Us Project UBC
35
Fig. 5. The Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism and the Hierarchy of Decision-Making
within the CRFM. Source: Haughton et al 2004.
36
Table 1. The relative importance of various fisheries to Caribbean countries and their state of exploitation
(see text for description of each fishery type). Illegal foreign fishing is indicated by shading. Source: Mahon
2002.
Caribbean State
Fishery type
Reef
Slope/
Large
Flying-
Coastal
Ground-
Coastal
Lobster
Conch
fish
Bank
pelagic
fish
pelagic
Shrimp
fish
demersal
Antigua/Barbuda
%%%
%%
%%%
%
%
%
f
o
f
u
u
f
Bahamas
%%%
%%
%
%
%
f
f
u
u
u
Barbados
%
%
%%
%%%
%%%
%
f
f
f
u
u
f
Belize
%%%
%%%
%%
%
%
%%
f
o
u
u
u
uk
f
British Virgin Islands
%%
%%
%%
%
%
%
o
o
f
u
u
u
Dominica
%
%
%%
%%
%%%
%
%
o
o
o
u
u
u
f
Dominican Republic
%%
%%
%%%
%
%
%
%%
o
o
o
u
u
uk
o
Grenada
%%
%%
%%
%
%%%
%
%%
o
o
o
u
u
u
f
Guyana
%%
%
%
%%%
%%
%%
f
u
u
o
o
uk
Haiti
%%
%%
%%%
%
%
%%
%
o
o
o
u
u
f
o
Jamaica
%%%
%%%
%%%
%
%
%
o
o
o
f
u
u
Montserrat
%
%
%%%
%
%%
%
o
o
o
u
u
f
St. Kitts/Nevis
%%
%%
%%%
%
%
%%
o
o
o
u
u
f
37
St. Lucia
%
%%
%%%
%%
%%%
%%
%
o
o
o
u
u
u
f
St. Vincent/Grenadines
%%
%
%%%
%
%%%
%%
o
o
o
u
u
f
Suriname
%%
%
%
%%%
%%
%%
f
u
u
o
o
f
Trinidad/Tobago
%
%
%%
%%
%%
%%
%%
%%
%
%
f
f
o
u
f
u
u
o
f
f
%%% = Extremely important, %% = Important, % = Significant
f = Fully exploited, o = Overexploited, u = Underexploited, uk = unknown
Illegal foreign fishing:
Extensive problem
Problem in certain areas
1.
The indication that large pelagics are underexploited means that the country is not taking a share which would be expected on the
basis of the size of its EEZ. If all countries develop the relevant capacity to exploit, the resources will certainly become overfished.
2 Resource status is largely based on circumstantial evidence . Foreign fishing is indicated by shading.
38
14 Appendix I Functions of an RFMO (Article 10 of UNFSA)
Functions of subregional and regional fisheries management organizations and
arrangements
In fulfilling their obligation to cooperate through subregional or regional fisheries
management organizations or arrangements, States shall:
(a) agree on and comply with conservation and management measures to ensure the long-
term sustainability of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks;
(b) agree, as appropriate, on participatory rights such as allocations of allowable catch or
levels of fishing effort;
(c) adopt and apply any generally recommended international minimum standards for the
responsible conduct of fishing operations;
(d) obtain and evaluate scientific advice, review the status of the stocks and assess the impact
of fishing on non-target and associated or dependent species;
(e) agree on standards for collection, reporting, verification and exchange of data on fisheries
for the stocks;
(f) compile and disseminate accurate and complete statistical data, as described in Annex I, to
ensure that the best scientific evidence is available,while maintaining confidentiality where
appropriate;
(g) promote and conduct scientific assessments of the stocks and relevant research and
disseminate the results thereof;
(h) establish appropriate cooperative mechanisms for effective monitoring,control,
surveillance and enforcement;
(i) agree on means by which the fishing interests of new members of the organization or new
participants in the arrangement will be accommodated;
(j) agree on decision-making procedures which facilitate the adoption of conservation and
management measures in a timely and effective manner;
(k) promote the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with Part VIII;
(l) ensure the full cooperation of their relevant national agencies and industries in
implementing the recommendations and decisions of the organization or arrangement; and
m) give due publicity to the conservation and management measures established by the
organization or arrangement.
39