Arctic Fisheries and International Law

Transcription

1 Arctic Fisheries and International Law Erik J. Molenaar Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS), Utrecht University & Faculty of Law, University of Tromsø Arctic Summer College, 20 Aug. 2012

2 Overview of this lecture Definitions Current problems in marine capture fisheries Maritime zones 'International entitlements to marine living resources Restrictions on entitlements International legal framework International fisheries law and the Arctic

3 Definitions Arctic marine area vs Arctic Ocean Arctic Ocean << Arctic marine area North of Bering Strait, Greenland, Svalbard & Franz Josef Land; not: Bering Sea and Barents Sea Characteristics compared to more southerly areas: Data, knowledge and insight in ecosystems limited Currently no large-scale commercial fisheries and - in the high seas portion (Central Arctic Ocean (CAO)) - no fisheries at all Larger gaps in the international regime Target species fish, including mollusks and crustaceans (but not marine mammals) Key terms: coastal state & flag state

4

5 Current problems in marine capture fisheries Over-exploitation of target species (overcapacity) By-catch of non-target species (fish and non-fish; e.g. large-scale pelagic driftnets) Discarding of target and non-target species Impacts on the benthos (e.g. bottomtrawling)

6 Current problems in marine capture fisheries (cont.) Subsidies Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing External factors Marine pollution Invasive alien species Effects of climate change

7

8 Maritime zones Within coastal State sovereignty (territory) (Maritime) internal waters Archipelagic waters Territorial sea Within coastal State s functional jurisdiction Contiguous zone Continental shelf Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or exclusive fishery zone (EFZ) Areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) High seas primacy of flag State jurisdiction Area competence of International Seabed Authority (ISA) over minerals

9 Maritime zones (cont.)

10 EEZs and outer continental shelves

11 High seas pockets in the Arctic

12 High seas pockets in the Arctic

13 International entitlements to marine living resources Coastal State In maritime zones under coastal State sovereignty (internal waters, archipelagic waters & territorial sea) In maritime zones where coastal States have sovereign rights (EEZ/EFZ & continental shelf) Flag State Access to the surplus of the total allowable catch (TAC) through public (bilateral or multilateral) access agreements Freedom of fishing on the high seas

14 Restrictions on entitlements Arts 61, 117 and 119 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) Avoiding over-exploitation by science-based management Set the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Striving for Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), as qualified inter alia by: environmental and economic factors, including the economic needs of coastal communities and the special requirements of developing States associated and dependent species

15 Restrictions on entitlements (cont.) Optimum utilization coastal State shall give other States access to the surplus of the TAC (Art. 62 LOS Convention) not for marine mammals (Art. 65 LOS Convention) Duty to cooperate with other coastal or flag States in relation to transboundary and discrete high seas fish stocks (Arts and 118 LOS Convention) Re straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, duty means duty to cooperate with regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) (Art. 8(3) Fish Stocks Agreement)

16 International legal framework Various levels Global, (sub)regional & bilateral Various types of international instruments Jurisdictional framework LOS Convention + Fish Stocks Agreement Fisheries regulation FAO instruments (e.g. Code of Conduct, Compliance Agreement, PSM Agreement) RFMOs + Arrangements Bilateral fisheries agreements (access + regulation) Conservation of target & non-target species and their habitats E.g. CITES + CMS

17

18

19 International legal framework (cont.) Filling gaps in high seas coverage with RFMOs Pacific Atlantic? Arctic?

20

21 International fisheries law and the Arctic All global instruments and global bodies also apply to the Arctic marine area, including the (Central) Arctic Ocean, however defined Relevant RFMOs RFMOs also relevant to Arctic marine area but not Arctic Ocean RFMOs also relevant to Arctic Ocean

22 RFMOs also relevant to Arctic marine area but not Arctic Ocean Central Bering Sea (CBS) Convention International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) Yukon River Panel to Pacific Salmon Treaty Intergovernmental Consultative Committee (ICC) Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Loophole Agreement RFMOs also relevant to Arctic Ocean Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)

23 International fisheries law and the Arctic (cont.) North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) Denmark (i.r.o. Faroe Islands and Greenland), EU, Iceland, Norway and Russian Federation All residual fish E.g. herring & blue whiting Excluding also those managed by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission

24

25 International fisheries law and the Arctic (cont.) Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission Spatial scope not specified Main species: cod, haddock, Greenland halibut, capelin (and harp seals, king crab etc.) Unique practice vis-a-vis the Loophole 2010 Murmansk Treaty: largely status quo but also focus on Arctic Ocean

26

27 International fisheries law and the Arctic (cont.) Potential relevance of Arctic Council Arctic Ocean Review (AOR) project decisionshaping or decision-making Arctic Council System (ACS) Arctic Search and Rescue (SAR) Agreement Arctic Marine Oil Pollution, Preparedness and Response (MOPPR) Agreement

28 International fisheries law and the Arctic ( cont.) Main gaps in regime for Arctic Ocean 1. Lack of data 2. Inadequate regulation by relevant states and entities individually 3. Gaps in Arctic Ocean coastal state fora and instruments 4. Gaps in high seas coverage with RFMOs

29

30 International fisheries law and the Arctic ( cont.) Some options for filling some gaps More science and assessments Stand-alone instrument for the (Central) Arctic Ocean Role of the Arctic Council or the Arctic Council System?

31 Thanks! Questions?