Agenda 21, Chapter 17, Section C
Sustainable Use and Conservation of Marine Living Resources of the High Seas
Michelle Dear
In 1992, paragraph 17.50 of chapter 17, indicated that:
�States should convene, as soon as possible, an intergovernmental conference�with a view to promoting effective implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks�.This conference took place in 1995, and an agreement was signed. However this agreement has not yet entered into force and will not do so until ratified by 30 countries. The importance of such an agreement can be highlighted by events such as the EU vs. Chile Swordfish dispute that has been going on over the past decade.
Swordfish (Xiphias gladius), are a highly migratory species which cross the jurisdictional boundaries of many states and the high seas. Chile has long believed that South Pacific Swordfish stocks have been seriously depleted due to over fishing by commercial longline vessels. Reliable stock assessments for these fish do not exist but 1990s catch data has indicated that swordfish have been fished above a maximum sustainable yield for some time. Chilean Fisheries Law has since made provisions to conserve depleted stocks.
The Dispute
The Chilean Perspective
This dispute began in 1991 when Chile banned EU fleets from port landing and processing swordfish caught both inside and outside of it�s EEZ, on the basis that they disregarded the conservation standards laid out in Article 165 of Chilean Fisheries Law. As a result of this, Chile also believed the EU to be in violation of the United Nations agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Chile has also justified the restriction on the basis of Article 23(3) of this agreement, which allows states to prohibit landings where capture has compromised the effectiveness of multilateral conservation measures. Although Chile has not ratified this agreement, it is a member of CPPS (Permanent Commission for the South Pacific) and as such does endorse such measures.
Chile�s main aim is to pressure the boats of other nations fishing beyond the EEZ to pursue the activity in a responsible, transparent regulated manner. Due to the conservational motivation behind Chile�s actions, there is a great deal of support from international environmental organisations such as WWF.
The EU Perspective
The situation developed into a full-scale dispute because the EU believes that the restrictions enforced by Chile are in violation of the following articles of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT):
Article V
Article XI that relates to prohibiting quantitative restrictions on imports or exports, subject to some exceptions for imports of agricultural or fisheries products.
The EU also believes that the Chilean restrictions reduce competition for Chilean fishing vessels and thus incurs losses for the EU fleet.
It should be noted at this point that while there is disagreement about why this dispute has arisen, both sides share the same overall objective-to preserve swordfish populations with minimum impact on trade and aim to achieve sustainable development of fish resources.
Settlement Attempts
As a result of the dispute, both parties have recognised the need for co-operation on data collection relating to fisheries resources in the international waters of the Southeast Pacific. Two meetings have taken place (December 1995 and May 1998) where data was exchanged, but no agreement was made on the status of swordfish stocks. Neither meeting made any progress towards settling the dispute. In addition to these meetings, Chile and the EU have carried out bilateral consultations in an attempt to settle the issue. However, a lack of success motivated each party to take their cases to higher bodies for settlement:
The EU, believing the dispute to be about Trade issues, chose to bring the case before the WTO (World Trade Organisation) in April 2000.
Chile however believed it to be an environmental conflict with regard to multilateral conservation agreements (protection of transboundary and migratory fish stocks) and as such, invited the EU to engage in a formal dispute settlement process under the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
While both parties believed these settlement processes to be necessary to safeguard their rights and actions, Chile and the EU continued to explore alternative avenues to achieve settlement through negotiation in order to avoid the need for either a WTO or ITLOS panels.
Final Dispute Settlement
On January 25th 2001, Chile and the EU finally reached a compromise and settled the swordfish dispute. This agreement was reached through bilateral negotiations and both parties suspended proceedings with the WTO and ITLOS panels. The agreement provides limited access for EU fishing boats and bilateral and multilateral scientific and technical co-operation in order to achieve the conservation of swordfish stocks.
Main Provisions of the Settlement
Chile will allow four EU vessels to land a total of 1,000 metric tons of swordfish at three designated Chilean ports.
Similar restrictions exist for Chilean vessels.
A program of intensive data collection will take place to enable a joint EU-Chilean evaluation of South Pacific swordfish stocks.
Meetings will be resumed between the EU and Chile within the framework of a Bilateral Scientific and Technical Commission (BSTC).
Both parties will work towards the establishment of a multilateral framework for the conservation and management of swordfish in the Southeastern Pacific.
Importance of This Dispute To enter into force, 30 countries must ratify the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. As of 24th January 2001, only 27 countries had ratified the agreement. In spite of the fact that Chile has not ratified this agreement, it is apparent that the country followed its guiding principles when attempting to managing straddling and migratory stocks. As such it is clear that the agreement is crucial to the conservation of such stocks and therefore it is important that it is brought into force as quickly as possible.
Joseph Allison
Elasmobranchs, in this case referring to all cartilaginous fish, are a versatile but sensitive fisheries resource. Meat, fins, skin, organs and oil are all used for human consumption in a number of different industries, from cooking to cosmetics, textiles to health-care, with by-products such as teeth and jaws acting as sought after tourist curios. However, slow growth rates, prolonged sexual maturation and low fecundity rates all hinder the rate at which this resource may be harvested in a manner that is sustainable. In addition to this little is known about many species life history, abundance and stock structure, further restricting effective management of this, in most cases, highly migratory species.
The meat of elasmobranchs has historically been thought of and treated as inferior to other marine sources and deemed unpalatable in many regions. It also contains high levels of urea and spoils rapidly, infecting other meats in storage if not processed quickly. This has lead to a relatively low market value of the meat, forcing animals to be discarded when caught incidentally in fisheries seeking more valuable species, such as tuna and billfish. In 1991 the longline fisheries of Japan, Korea and Taiwan are estimated to have incidentally caught nearly one third of the total elasmobranch landings reported to the FAO (Rose, 1996), other reports suggest that the incidental catch is nearer 50%. Reports indicate that the total number of sharks finned annually has reached 100 million.
One part of elasmobranch anatomy has remained commercially valuable in certain areas for centuries. The fins of elasmobranchs consist of ceratotrichia, soft collagen and elastin fibres normally referred to as fin rays or needles. Basically tasteless but gelatinous, these needles when processed are similar to rice noodles. Shark fin soup has been served in honour of special guests or at formal banquets in China since the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), becoming a traditional part of banquets through the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). By the end of this period shark fin soup had become an established part of both Cantonese and Hong Kong cuisines.
The consumption of this luxury item was discouraged by the Chinese government after World War II. However, during the 1980�s the relaxation of state market controls here, saw an increase in disposable incomes that led to a marked increase in domestic demand. This in-turn had a significant impact on world fin prices and trade. Word travelled quickly to fisheries of this increase in value, the trade in fins and recorded catches of sharks began to escalate.
The data on fin trade is to a large extent incomplete and unreliable. According to the FAO, world totals of shark fin trade increased more than tenfold between 1980 and 1990. However, these figures are unreliable because imports were only reported for nine countries and exports for fifteen countries. Along with inconsistencies within some countries, the USA reports imports but not exports, and the reporting of repeat shipments, increased the unreliability of this data.
Hong Kong is currently considered the capital of the shark fin trade both as a consumer and processor, with much of the world�s trade passing through it, and the data from customs here paints a more comprehensive picture of the scale in trade. From 1980-1995, Hong Kong reported imports from 125 countries and re-exports to 75 countries. The volume of shark fin imports by weight rose from 2742t in 1980 to 6121t in 1995, an increase of approximately 125% (Rose, 1996), again there is speculation that the reporting of repeat shipments maybe responsible for some of this increase. Particularly between Hong Kong and China as an increasing amount of processing takes place in China, with the products re-exported to Hong Kong, thus appearing up to four times on customs data.
Although it is apparent that the trade in shark fins is increasing, to what degree and where is not so easy to determine, due to unreliable data. The trade between Hong Kong, China and Singapore appears to be growing at a small rate, whilst developments in other areas are more noticeable. In the USA fin traders are reporting the entry of a number of new �entrepreneurs� into the trade, and of market and communication developments that are increasing prices. Subsequently, this has stimulated fisheries in parts of the country to be directed towards sharks. This has also been apparent in parts of Africa, where fin traders from China and Hong Kong offer outboard motors in return for any shark fins. In Tanzania, the increasing number of traders has resulted in a 70% increase in prices (Rose, 1996).
Since elasmobranch or shark fisheries are largely incidental or at best seasonal, making only a small contribution towards overall fisheries production, historically there has been little attention placed by both national and international agencies on compiling data for these species. This data deficiency as stated earlier is also apparent in trade data as figures rarely indicate fisheries, regions or species information, and many trade products are not identifiable, once processed, to species level. Until this issue is addressed, the species and areas requiring conservation management measures will be hard to identify. Currently it is thought that the pelagic species of sharks such as the blue, thresher, mako, porbeagle and oceanic whitetip are at greatest risk along with those that provide the highest value fins, such as the great white, basking and whale sharks.
The trade in shark fins highlights many of the issues of primary concern in the high seas section of chapter 17, Agenda 21. Particularly, decreases in populations and overcapitalisation, capture of non-target species and discards, unreliable and insufficient databases and poor co-operation between states. As with those of section C, the issues of shark finning are being slowly addressed. International bodies such as CITES and ICCAT have formed working groups to improve data and instigated observer programmes on tuna long-liners. Shark finning is now banned in Canada, USA, Australia and Brazil. Where it is now illegal to be in possession of a detached fin without the associated carcass. Efforts are also being made to protect the larger species at risk, such as great whites, basking and whale sharks by upgrading them to either Appendix II or I on the IUCN Red List of threatened species.
Since this project was initiated it has become apparent, through an Elasmobranch web-based symposium, that an agency based in the Marshall Islands has made an agreement with a foreign company enabling the company to fish the local waters specifically for shark fins. While there are no international binding agreements to stop this practice, the bodies of these magnificent creatures will continue to go to waste for the enjoyment of a select few.