Principles and practice for the equitable governance of transboundary natural resources: cross-cutting lessons for marine fisheries management

Abstract

Conflicts over the equitability of transboundary natural resource conservation and management schemes have created barriers to effective policy implementation and practice. In seeking to overcome these barriers in the context of progressing transboundary oceanic fisheries conservation, we explore the divide between equity as defined in principle and as applied in practice in international policy and law. Searching for cross-cutting lessons and themes, we first review multilateral environmental agreements to see how equity is commonly being defined, understood, and then applied in principle. From this analysis, we identify common elements that can facilitate the conceptual framing and application of equitable principles in practice. Framed within these elements, we then explore how applications of equitable principles have performed in two current transboundary conservation and management case studies in regional fisheries management and international climate change policy. From this analysis, we conclude with some lessons learned which show that finding solutions to equity-driven barriers to transboundary conservation, while challenging, are well within our existing capacity to develop and execute.

Quantifying biases in marine‐protected‐area placement relative to abatable threats

“…Ensuring that both costs and benefits of transboundary conservation and management schemes are fair and equitable among stakeholders has been identified as a key component of ensuring timely and effective conservation outcomes (Campbell & Hanich ). Game‐theoretic and review approaches of transboundary fisheries management (e.g., oceanic tuna stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean) suggest that side payments may help resolve this complex problem (Munro ; Bhat & Huffaker ; Campbell & Hanich ) and could be similarly applied in the context of MPAs, but examples of how such burdens should be shared are lacking and context‐dependent, innovative solutions are needed.…”

The future of ocean governance

“…Issues in ocean governance can challenge how we cooperate nationally, regionally, and internationally (Action 4) (Campbell and Hanich 2015 ; Costanza et al 1998 ; Díaz et al 2019 ). Understanding and achieving equity, alleviating poverty, and enhancing human resilience are required to foster cooperation.…”

Consuming sustainable seafood: guidelines, recommendations and realities

“…Of the top types recommended for health and sustainabilitysalmon, sardines, tuna, mackerel and barramundi (Table 4)some Australian fisheries are assessed as sustainable by government fishery assessments, while others are not, including bigeye tuna (Eastern stock), yellowfin tuna (Western stock) and bluefin tuna (56,57) . The sustainability of imports of these seafood types is not always clear; for example, some tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean are subject to overfishing and overcapacity (58) , while others from the same region have MSC certification. Atlantic salmon is not considered sustainable by the AMCS guide or by the Australian seafood (based on volume) (50) Australian and imported seafood (based on occasions) (49) Table guide gives the red light to bluefin tuna.…”