The Proposed Implementing Agreement: Options for Coherence and Consistency in the Establishment of Protected Areas beyond National Jurisdiction

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide initial thoughts on potential conflicts between the mandates of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and any mechanisms for establishing Marine Protected Areas in the high seas and how these conflicts might be avoided. The article addresses first, whether the fears that may exist concerning the conflicts are, as a matter of international law, real and to the extent that they are real, how an Implementing Agreement (IA) might be shaped to avoid them. As the article is intended to provide only initial thoughts, the range of RFMOs and possible conflicts are only illustrative and are not intended to be comprehensive. With the potential conflicts in mind, the article then provides, in the third section, possible approaches that the drafters of the IA could adopt to avoid and/or mitigate against them. Finally, the article offers some concluding remarks.

Pathways to sustaining tuna-dependent Pacific Island economies during climate change

“…Increased tuna biomass in high-seas areas will also need to be considered during the application of the emerging instrument for conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 24 (Supplementary Note 8). Although the BBNJ Agreement has been designed to avoid undermining existing governance regimes in high-seas areas 25,26 , questions remain regarding interactions between fisheries management and components of the agreement related to area-based management, transfer of technology and capacity building 27,28 . Accordingly, WCPFC and IATTC will need to develop transparent systems for information exchange and cooperation with the BBNJ institutional framework and manage any new impacts between fisheries and high-seas biodiversity caused by climate change.…”

The Voice of Science on Marine Biodiversity Negotiations: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Dias et al, 2017;O'Leary and Roberts, 2018;O'Leary et al, 2020). There is an overall consensus within the scientific community that marine protected areas (MPAs) constitute an important biodiversity conservation tool by preventing overexploitation and limiting adverse human impact on marine ecosystems (Evans et al, 2015;Tladi, 2015;Wright and Rochette, 2017;O'Leary and Roberts, 2018;Smith and Jabour, 2018;Popova et al, 2019;Wang, 2019;Blasiak et al, 2020). Apart from MPAs, also other areabased management tools can be used to govern the conservation and sustainable use of marine life.…”

Transboundary fisheries, climate change, and the ecosystem approach: taking stock of the international law and policy seascape

“…Although UNFSA considers a broader obligation to protect biodiversity in the marine environment, this obligation needs to be interpreted in the context of the UNFSA objective, that is, ensuring the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling and highly migratory stocks (Tladi 2015). Biodiversity objectives will need to be balanced with short-term and stockspecific fisheries objectives; in a context of consensus-based decision making, RFMO/As almost invariably prioritize the latter.…”