Objectives a and b ultimately have the same required outcome in as much as they both aim to ensure that high seas living resources are developed and maintained to provide a sustainable harvest for the human population. Consequently these objectives will be considered in parallel in this section.

Objective
(a) Develop and increase the potential of marine living resources to meet human nutritional needs, as well as social, economic and developmental goals.
(b) Maintain or restore populations of marine species at levels that can produce maximum sustainable yields as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors taking into consideration relationships among species.

Measures Introduced to Achieve the Objective

Since Agenda 21 in 1992, a number of policies and agreements relating to high seas living resources have come into force. The legal framework for sustainable use and conservation of living aquatic resources in the high seas has been improved since the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) came into force in 1994. This agreement established the rights and duties of states with respect to the conservation and management of resources. Following this agreement, various Governments have adopted or voluntarily agreed to the following international instruments relating to fisheries management:

United Nations Conference of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: This is a multilateral agreement that regulates the capture of transboundary and migratory fish stocks. Signed in 1995, this agreement will go into force following ratification by 30 countries. Although not presently in force, several countries have ratified and adopted it.

Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO): This code was adopted in November 1995. It sets out principles and standards of behaviour for responsible practices with a view to ensuring the effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources with due respect for ecosystem and biodiversity. An integral part of this code of conduct is the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas: This agreement was approved in November 1993 and outlines important aspects of high seas fishing. It refers to the duties of a state to exercise effective control over vessels within its jurisdiction and highlights the problems of vessel reflagging as a means of avoiding conservation measures.

Increasing use of Quota management schemes: By assigning property rights and quotas to fisheries operators, resource managers introduce incentives to manage resources and assigns responsibility at the harvesting level.

Effectiveness of Measures

United Nations Conference of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: To enter into force this agreement must be ratified by 30 countries. As of 24th January 2001, the agreement had only been ratified by 27 countries and as a result, is not currently in force. While this in itself, reduces the current effectiveness of such an agreement, there have been incidences where countries have followed its guiding principles when managing straddling and migratory stocks.

Under the UN Agreement on Migratory and Straddling Fish Stocks, a state may prohibit the landing of fish caught outside of its EEZ when it finds that the catch has been taken in a way that undermines the effectiveness of multilateral conservation and management measures on the high seas.

In 1991, Chile banned EU fleets from landing swordfish caught near it�s EEZ an the basis that they were disregarding conservation standards of Chilean Fisheries Law relating to transboundary fish stocks.

Although Chile has not signed the agreement, it is a member of the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific, which actively supports multilateral conservation measures for conserving living resources on the high seas.

Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: At present only 20 of the 25 acceptances required to bring this agreement into force have been received. This again reduces the effectiveness of the code but does not prevent countries from following it.

Quota management: Quota management is becoming more extensively used in fisheries management, but with varying degrees of success. In 1996 OECD reported that of 22 studied fisheries, only 6 had been maintained at steady levels using quota management. The remaining fisheries had experienced declines and even collapses of stocks (Morgan, 1997). Quota management fails for a variety of reasons, the majority of which relate to management and quota allocation techniques.

Conclusion

Has the Objective Been Met?
It is clear that the agreements and measures outlined above make positive steps towards conserving and managing fisheries. However, it is essential to consider the current state of high seas living resources if we are to determine if objectives a and b have been met. According to Garcia and Newton (in press-as cited in Mace, 1996), when all species are considered together, the world�s fisheries resources appear to be being exploited at the MSY level. However these data do not provide any indication of the proportion of high seas species involved in this analysis, nor their status. With reference to high seas species, it would appear that objectives a and b have been accomplished to varying extents as highlighted by the following examples:

North Atlantic Swordfish

During 1997-1999, stocks have been managed using various techniques (quota and size restrictions).

Catch rates are showing signs of stability and recovery.

The relative biomass of the stock 9needed to produce MSY) has increased from 0.58 (1996) to 0.65 in 1999.

Southern Bluefin Tuna

In 1997 WWF reported that stocks were at lowest recorded levels.

�Status of parental stock is less than 9% of what it was in 1960��

The current TAC limit of 11,750 tonnes needs to be reduced by 35% to allow stocks to recover by 2020.

The long recovery period of this stock shows how objective b will not be fully met for many years.

Objective C

Promote the development and use of selective fishing gear and practices that minimise waste in the catch of target species and minimise by-catch of non-target species.

Fishing techniques employed on the high seas, such as purse seining, long lining and drift nets are all relatively unselective as to the species being caught, and as such by-catch is an inherent problem. One of the benefits of high seas fisheries is that the stocks targeted do not tend to be mixed, compared to coastal fisheries, reducing the catch ratio of non-target to target species. Despite this, by-catch and the subsequent discards on the high seas has received a great deal of attention with some regulation over the past decade, and some suggest that it is the most important problem currently facing fisheries (Hall, 1999).

The ratio of discards (discard weight: total weight) in high seas fisheries is generally small when compared to demersal trawling methods (0.15 � 0.84) (Alverson et al, 1994). However, due to the large scale of these fisheries it still amounts to a high volume of waste. Further to this the by-catch often consists of high profile, or �aesthetic� species, such as marine mammals, birds, sharks or other commercially important fish species, bringing the topic to the fore.

Measures Introduced In an effort to reduce levels of by-catch on the high seas, policy measures, or action plans have been included in many of the current fisheries guidelines, with some more specific measures taken against particularly harmful fishing methods. These include:

The moratorium on the use of large-scale drift nets (1992): The General Assembly of the United Nations imposed this moratorium on all large-scale (>2.5km in length) driftnet fishing on the high seas. Further to this the Assembly asked all states to provide the Secretary General with any information concerning conduct inconsistent with the moratorium. In 1995 the FAO reported that the moratorium was being observed in most regions and this method of fishing was in decline. However, in 1998 Greenpeace reported that they had found 14 illegally sized driftnets in the space of a week in the Mediterranean. These nets are known to belong to Italian fisheries where the authorities are not upholding the ban due to logistical problems.

The code of conduct for responsible fisheries (1995): This Code sets out principles and international standards of behaviour for responsible practices with a view to ensuring the effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources, with due respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity. It tackles the issue of by-catch and discard in general principles 6.6 and 6.7, and in section 8.5 gear selectivity. Stating that �All States, whether members or non-members of FAO, as well as relevant international organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental should actively cooperate with FAO in this work�. Currently 20 acceptances have been received out of the required 25 for it to come into force.

The agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory species (1995): Although not currently in force, requiring the ratification of 3 more states, this agreement has been adopted by several countries. By-catch, non-selective gear and discard waste are dealt with in general principles (f). It is hoped that this agreement when in force will reverse the decline and miss-management of world fisheries. However, with a href="http://www.panda.org/news/press/archive/news_172.htm">8 signatures missing from the top 20 fishing nations, the high seas may continue to be fished unchecked.

The World food summit plan of action (1996): The FAO initiated this summit in response to widespread under nutrition, and concerns about the ability of agriculture to meet the current and future demands on supply. The high levels of waste generated by unsound fishing practices were highlighted in one of the objectives, to optimise the long-term sustainable contribution of fisheries resources to food security.
Many more effective measures exist that have been successfully introduced at national levels.

Effectiveness of measures

Data from the FAO indicates that the volume of by-catch is down on the previous decade (Pascoe, 1997). One reason of why this has been has been the introduction of gear restrictions or escapement measures.

Objective D

Ensure effective monitoring and enforcement with respect to fishing activities. In the FAO fisheries technical paper (338) on monitoring, control and surveillance the author points out that in many countries there are no established systems set for the monitoring and control of fishing activities within their maritime zones (Flewwelling, 1994). The absence of such systems is even more noticeable for the high seas, a region that does not lend itself well to such measures due to the vast nature of the area concerned and the official open access title it carries.
Many initiatives have been introduced that have been pertinent to the high seas since the adoption of the United Nations Law of the Sea in 1994 (see previous objectives in this section). As these initiatives and conventions are ratified, entered into force and gradually gain credibility, the pressure on participating States to implement, enforce and monitor them also increases. Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) systems have historically been thought of as a luxury for developed States, but they have now become the obligation of all States in order to conserve marine resources.

Measures Introduced

Advice on the implementation and monitoring of initiatives is often included within the text. This does however tend to be very general and non-specific. How each State is able to implement and monitor policy is going to depend upon the available budget, the localised degree of importance and the functional capacity of that State. However two incentives are being introduced that may be of particular importance in this issue. These are the FAO flagging initiative and the extension of port State control.

Flag State duties: This initiative is detailed in section 8, fishing operations, in The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The main objectives of this initiative stem from the management related activities (paragraphs 17.51, 17.52 & 17.53) in section C of chapter 17. These state that flag States should ensure; vessels flying their flag operate in a way that minimises incidental catch; management and conservation rules are adhered to by their vessels; and, the reflagging of vessels to avoid compliance is deterred.

Port State control: This encourages States to take appropriate measures to combat illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing activities as goods transit through their ports; such measures may include monitoring of arrivals and departures, inspection of fishing gears, catches, crews and any other element as required.

Objective E

Protect and restore endangered marine species.

Measures Introduced to Achieve the Objective

Endangered species are protected and classified under a number of agreements, some of which were founded before Agenda 21 came into effect and others that came about as a result of Agenda 21:

Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the IUCN-World Conservation Union, founded in 1948. This group produces the �Red List� database that indicates the status of threatened animals.

United States Endangered Species Act, 1973.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), signed in 1973, ratified 1975.

International Whaling Convention agreed in 1982.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, agreed in 1992 (a product of the Rio Conference and Agenda 21). In addition to these agreements, various non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace and WWF organise campaigns to protect endangered species. These types of campaign are particularly important because they often involve charismatic species that are useful in gaining the attention of the public, bringing support and finance to endangered species campaigns.

Conclusion

Effectiveness of Measures/ Has the Objective Been Met?

Four years after Agenda 21 was implemented, the IUCN published the 1996 Red List of Endangered Species. This list identified a number of high seas species as threatened to some extent. If objective e of Agenda 21 is to have been met, then the status of these high seas species should have improved since the publication of this list. Data taken from the recently published 2000 Red list shows that sadly none of the species classifications have improved:

Atlantic Cod
Severe depletion of this species led to a moratorium being placed on commercial hunting for Atlantic Cod in 1992.
1996: Vulnerable
2000: Vulnerable

Whale Shark
This naturally rare species is under threat from overexploitation as a meat source in mainly Asian countries.
1996: Data Deficient
2000: Vulnerable

Redfish
Massive overexploitation of this species has led to declines in populations and very low spawning stock biomass.
1996: Endangered
2000: Endangered

North Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Increasingly high demand for this fish caused North West Atlantic populations to crash by 85% between 1975 and the early 1990s.
1996: Endangered
2000: Critical

Swordfish
This species is threatened by commercial fishing but is also under pressure from sport fishing.
1996: Endangered
2000: Endangered

A positive step towards meeting objective e can be seen in the case of Whale Sharks. In 1996, the status of the Whale Shark was classified as Data Deficient, which indicates that monitoring of such species was poor and very little data existed to allow status assessment. However in 2000 the Whale shark was given a status of Vulnerable. While this classification does not indicate an improvement in the status of Whale Shark populations, it does show that the monitoring of endangered high seas species is getting better because the quality and quantity of data has improved enough to allow status assessment. In conclusion, it would appear that while objective e has not yet been achieved, an improvement in monitoring and data quality means that the objective may begin to be met in the near future.

Objective F

Preserve habitats and other ecologically sensitive areas.

Measures Introduced to Achieve the Objective and their Effectiveness.

Things such as trawl fishing and oil and gas exploration mainly cause habitat destruction and damage in the high seas. To reduce such damage it is necessary to restrict or prevent these kinds of activities from occurring in sensitive areas. The best way to reduce the impacts of such activities from taking place is through the use of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and No-Take Zones. No-Take Zones are marine reserves where all types of extractive activities are prohibited and so oil and gas exploration and trawling are prevented from happening. MPAs are similar to No-Take Zones but in some instances certain activities are permitted under within guidelines.
Around the time that Agenda 21 was agreed MPAs were beginning to be used to protect coastal areas. There was little awareness about the need for habitat protection on the high seas. Since Agenda 21, more and more marine reserves have come into existence. However, few of these exist on the high seas. At present, approximately 1% of the World�s oceans (including coastal waters) are covered by marine reserves and of these reserves, only 50% are managed effectively.

Since Agenda 21 was agreed, there has been an increasing awareness that the high seas need to be protected through the use of marine reserves. Various policies and agreements have been developed to promote the designation of marine reserves for the sake of habitat and biodiversity protection:

IUCN High Seas Project: This project promotes the protection of open-ocean ecosystems and High Seas MPAs.

WWF MPA project: Launched in 1999, this project promotes the development of a network of MPAs in the Northeast Atlantic, with special emphasis on High Seas MPAs.

EU Habitats Directive & Natura 2000: This European Directive promotes the development of Special areas of Conservation (SACs) and MPAs. It should be noted that until recently the jurisdiction of the Habitats Directive stops at the 12nm limits of territorial waters and as such its effectiveness at protecting high seas habitats was compromised. However, recent efforts by Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org) have ensured that high seas habitats are now beginning to be protected from damage.

OSPAR Annex v: This new annex indicates the obligations of states arising from the Biodiversity Convention with respect to OSPAR. It contracts states to develop programmes and measures, including the establishment of a network of MPAs, to safeguard individually and jointly habitats and species in their territorial waters, their Exclusive Economic Zones and in the high-seas included in the OSPAR maritime area.

Conclusion

Has the Objective Been Met?

Although the number of protected areas in existence has not increased dramatically since Agenda 21, the agreements outlined above indicate that there has been a marked increase in awareness about the need to protect high seas habitats. While it appears that objective f has not been totally achieved as yet, increased awareness and better agreements relating to high seas habitat protection indicates that the objective is beginning to be tackled and should be met in the near future.

Objective G

Promote scientific research with respect to the marine living resources in the high seas.

The FAO Global Species Database for Fishery Purpose (SPECIESDAB) indicates that there are close to 400 species that can be considered completely or mostly oceanic/high seas. This includes about 50 species of cephalopods, 40 species of sharks, 60 species of marine mammals and 230 species of fish. At present the biological information, including current status and potential, regarding all but a few of these species is generally poor to non-existent (FAO, 1994). The majority of these species populations are dispersed, thus making them difficult to harvest economically, but even harder to study with any accuracy. Bearing in mind the deficiencies in data relating to high seas species, including highly migratory and straddling species, it is extremely difficult to assess or even model any real economic potential, or management plans effectively.
The dominant tools and models of fisheries management have historically been based upon single species population dynamics theory developed in the 1950�s. Most would agree that the subsequent management measures induced by these theories no longer achieve the necessary economic, biological and social objectives. Therefore, fisheries management needs to change. This change needs to be based upon and include a wider focus in management. Incorporating multispecies methods of modelling, as well as environmental variability. This will begin to occur more frequently as our understanding of the whole ecosystem approach improves.
There are now indications of this happening, such as the stock assessments for walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), that now include a qualitative index of advective losses of larvae by unfavourable currents (Hall, 1999). Due to the changing nature of fisheries, management needs to recognise such environmental effects and interactions, that once identified can help regulate fishing effort. This approach requires the development of integrated sampling programmes, which measure both biological and physical parameters of the entire system, and should be the focus of current research if high seas resources are to realise their necessary potential in a sustainable fashion.