The shared fish stocks conservation: revisiting the unconnected enforcement

Rachma Indriyani; Asmar Binti Abdul Rahim; Ruzita Binti Azmi

doi:10.22219/ljih.v29i1.15071

Authors

Rachma Indriyani School of Law, College of Law, Government, and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
Asmar Binti Abdul Rahim School of Law, College of Law, Government, and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
Ruzita Binti Azmi School of Law, College of Law, Government, and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v29i1.15071

Keywords:

high seas, CCSBT, conservation, migratory fish stocks

Abstract

“There is plenty of other fish in the sea," goes the old cliché as many stocks have been overfished by industrial fisheries, that the over-activity made some fish species in danger. The scope of this paper covers the enforcement issue of Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) as endangered fish species. Taking Indonesia, New Zealand, and Australia as member States who catch SBT, this paper is a conceptual study using content analysis aiming to review how these three-member States officially treat SBT stocks. Based on the discussion, it found that since the shared characteristic of SBT, in areas beyond national jurisdiction it might create regulatory gaps. While international provisions have been entered into force in respect of endangered fish stocks in high seas areas, however, a lacuna remained in which the law cannot reach the national fishing area. This situation may lead to a discrepancy framework at the national level. Therefore, this paper argues that connectivity is crucial to link enforcement among relevant States with the real interest. In this context, the enforcement must consider the movement path of SBT from a coastal State (the spawning ground), the flag State (the fishing vessel), and the Port State (the place to land SBT).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ABARES. (2020). Fishery Statust Report 2020. In Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (Issue 10 June). https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/fisheries/fishery-status/southern-bluefin-tuna- fishery#231-description-of-the-fishery

Anderson, J., Asche, F., Barnes, R. A., Bush, S., Gentner, B., Hufflet, C., Libecap, G. D., Maharaj, V., Nelson, L., & Norris, W. (2018). Principles for Fisheries Management in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction—the Essential Role of Incentive-Based Approaches. In World Wildlife Fund, Inc., Washington, DC.

CCSBT. (2018). Minimum Performance Requirements to Meet CCSBT Obligations, Compliance Policy Guideline 1. https://www.ccsbt.org/sites/default/files/userfiles/file/docs_english/operational_resolutions/CPG1_Minimum_Standards.pdf

Davis, R. A., & Hanich, Q. (2020). Transparency in fisheries conservation and management measures. Marine Policy, 104088.

EU IUU. (2019). Achieving Transparency And Combating IUU Fishing In RFMOs. IUU Watch. http://www.iuuwatch.eu/2019/06/new-report-achieving-transparency-and-combating-iuu-fishing-in-rfmos/

Fischman, R. L., & Hyman, J. B. (2010). The legal challenge of protecting animal migrations as phenomena of abundance. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 173–239.

Fisheries, N. Z. (2019). The status of New Zealand fisheries report 2019 (Issue February). https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/34419-the-status-of-new-zealand-fisheries report-2018-final

Guevara, M. W., Foster, M., Riggins, T., Alecci, S., & Patrucić, M. (2019). The Black Market in Bluefin. International Consortium of Investigative Journalist. https://www.icij.org/investigations/looting-the-seas/part-iii-bluefin-inc/

Guggisberg, S. (2016). The use of CITES for commercially-exploited fish species. Hambg. Stud. Marit. Aff, 35, 453.

Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries & WWF. (2011). The Action Plan of Indonesian Tuna Fisheries. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ins176205.pdf

Joyner, C. C. (1994). Ocean Fisheries, US Interests, and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev., 7, 749.

Mubarok, Z. (2019). Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and transnational organized fisheries crimes: Perspectives of legal and policy measures of Indonesia. University of Wollongong.

Phillips K, Curtotti, R., & Begg, G. (2019). NoFishery Status Reports 2008: status of fish stocks and fisheries managed by the Australian Government. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=6940 2

Popova, E., Vousden, D., Sauer, W. H. H., Mohammed, E. Y., Allain, V., Downey-Breedt, N., Fletcher, R., Gjerde, K. M., Halpin, P. N., & Kelly, S. (2019). Ecological connectivity between the areas beyond national jurisdiction and coastal waters: Safeguarding interests of coastal communities in developing countries. Marine Policy, 104, 90–102.

Pulsford, I., Lindenmayer, D., Wyborn, C., Lausche, B., Worboys, G. L., Vasilijević, M., & Lefroy, T. (2015). Connectivity conservation management. Protected Area Governance and Management, 851–888.

Rudd, M. B., & Branch, T. A. (2017). Does unreported catch lead to overfishing? Fish and Fisheries, 18(2), 313–323.

Smith, K. L. (1999). Highly Migratory Fish Species: Can International and Domestic Law Save the North Atlantic Swordfish. W. New Eng. L. Rev., 21, 5.

Sturtz, L. (2001). Southern Bluefin Tuna Case: Australia and New Zealand v. Japan. Ecology Law Quarterly, 455–486.

Tsamenyi, M., & Hanich, Q. (2012). Fisheries jurisdiction under the Law of the Sea Convention: rights and obligations in maritime zones under the sovereignty of Coastal States. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27(4), 783–793.

Worboys, G. L., & Mackey, B. (2013). Linking Australia’s Landscapes: Lessons and opportunities from large-scale conservation networks. In Connectivity conservation initiatives: a national and international perspective. CSIRO Publishing.

Wu, J. (2017). The Southern Bluefin Tuna Market in China, Traffic Report. https://www.traffic.org/publications/reports/southern-bluefin-tuna-market-in-china/