Evolution of international commitments for fisheries sustainability

Abstract

Rice, J. 2014. Evolution of international commitments for fisheries sustainability. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 157–165.

The basic standards for the sustainability of fisheries were set by international policy in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (FSA). However, each year since the FSA was ratified, the United Nations General Assembly has negotiated and agreed to resolutions on Ocean Law of the Sea and on Sustainable Fisheries. This paper reviews chronologically how the interpretation of “sustainability” has evolved in those resolutions, as well as been addressed in the decadal world summits on sustainable development. Although the basic biological benchmarks for sustainability have not been altered by these resolutions, commitments for the standards to be met by all ecosystem components impacted by fishing have become increasingly strong. The annual resolutions have increasingly stressed that environmental sustainability is critically important, but is not more important than social well-being aspects of sustainability, with fisheries having a vital role in sustainable development in many parts of the world. In addition, agreements on biodiversity conservation made largely in Oceans and Law of the Sea resolutions are increasingly influencing the nature and pace of evolution of how “sustainability” is interpreted in fisheries.

Introduction

In the daily work of fisheries science and management, the annual process of negotiating resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) may seem remote, if not invisible. Nevertheless, these annual resolutions are where countries move global agendas forward with new, revised or reemphasized policy commitments; for this issue, global agendas on conservation and sustainable use of living resources of the oceans and the ecosystems in which they live. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm; UNCLOS), the United Nations is the competent governance body for ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), and UNCLOS represents the overall “constitution for the oceans” (Moon, 2012). Consequently, UNGA sets standards for actions by States within their national jurisdictions as well as being the legitimate governance body for ABNJs.

Major treaties and Conventions (see below) may represent benchmarks for setting new courses of action within the overall framework of UNCLOS. However, the language in such high-level agreements is itself high level and, as many papers in this issue demonstrate, requires operational interpretation. Some of this interpretation is done by scientific and technical experts in their research and scientific meetings. However, experts do not always agree among themselves on how to interpret language in provisions of these high-level agreements (cf. Branch et al., 2012), and policy does not always track progress in science with immediacy (Rice, 2005). The two annual consensus resolutions of the UNGA relative to oceans and sustainable fisheries provide a concrete record, however, for how States are willing to interpret and act on the commitments in the high-level treaties and Conventions, and how they incorporate new knowledge and new considerations into the frameworks set by the higher level agreements.

In this paper, I first briefly summarize the commitments made in a few treaties and Conventions particularly relevant to sustainable fisheries, then track how States themselves have evolved in their interpretation of these commitments and in the actions they expect to be taken to deliver them. The paper often quotes directly from these resolutions, which gives the paper a density of policy language not typical of fisheries science papers. However, often consensus among States is hardest to achieve on exactly the issues requiring movement to either strengthen or alter past commitments, and the nuances in the final wording on which they agree are important. It is exactly these nuances which the scientific experts must interpret correctly if the science support they provide is to deliver the outcomes to which the States have committed.

The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, commonly referred to as the Fish Stocks Agreement (FSA; http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm), is an important foundation for setting standards for management objectives and assessing sustainability of commercial fisheries. Many of the papers in this special issue use the benchmarks contained in the FSA as the basis for their evaluations of the performance of various fisheries management strategies and agencies, and this paper uses it as the starting point for its review.

However, the FSA is far from the only international agreement containing commitments intended to influence the benchmarks and objectives used by fisheries management authorities and by assessors in evaluating performance of management strategies and authorities.

As the ecosystem approach has become an increasingly prominent concept in fisheries management, agreements and commitments made in inter-governmental fora not solely focused on fisheries nonetheless have relevant implications for fisheries management. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; http://www.cbd.int/convention/) and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES; http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php) are particularly relevant in this context. This stems from the fact that fisheries may pose a threat to the achievement of the objectives contained in those Conventions. Hence, these Conventions broaden the policy meaning of “sustainability” for fisheries, such that fisheries management agencies should adopt and enforce appropriate measures so that there is a high likelihood of delivering the outcomes contained in these other agreements and commitments (Rice and Ridgeway, 2010).

There is a spotty track record of achieving the necessary coherence of management objectives, policies, and measures across fisheries and other sectoral and conservation agencies (Ridgeway and Rice, 2010). The causes of successes and failures of fisheries management to achieve an increasingly large number of commitments for exploited stocks, fisheries industries and communities, and biodiversity more generally are complex and beyond the scope of this paper (Cochrane and Doulman, 2005; Garcia et al., in press). In this paper, I illustrate how the UNGA commitments made specifically for fisheries management and responsible uses of the oceans have increased and diversified in the years since the FSA, with brief mention of some major sources of other international commitments with direct relevance for fisheries management. This evolving set of commitments provides a context in which to consider many of the case histories reported in other papers in this special issue.

Methods: approach taken

The central focus of this paper is the provisions in two annual resolutions of the UNGA; on Sustainable Fisheries and on Oceans and Law of the Sea (OLS; http://www.un.org/Depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_resolutions.htm). Policy-makers and their science advisors may spend several weeks in formal and informal working group negotiations finding consensus wording for all the text in each resolution. Additions, deletions, or even changes in wording used to reconfirm a previous provision represent real changes in the standards which agencies and States are supposed to apply in their work, and the outcomes they are expected to deliver. These evolving provisions are considered chronologically. These resolutions are chosen because of their global scope, their ability to document incremental change in interpretations of the more overarching agreements and conventions, and at least conceptually, their lack of alignment with either the more conservationist view attributed to bodies such as CBD and CITES, or the more utilitarian view attributed to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). The resolutions have both “perambulatory paragraphs”, laying out concepts, principles, and desired outcomes to which States subscribe, and “operational paragraphs”, specifying actions States and intergovernmental organizations are expected to take. Both are analysed in this paper because both contain information about how States interpret “sustainability”.

With regard to the Sustainable Fisheries Resolution, during the first decade after the FSA was negotiated, additional commitments accumulated slowly and are considered individually. Following the adoption of the Reykjavik Declaration in 2001 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD; 2002), however, the content and complexity of the annual fisheries resolution escalated rapidly, and only the more general features and trends can be presented in the space available. The OLS resolutions have been negotiated for an even longer period than the FSA, going back to the 1980s when UNCLOS was ratified. For its first decade, it focused primarily on legal issues associated with uses of the oceans. Again, however, as the ecosystem approach became a policy component of most ocean industries, provisions on what constituted sustainable uses of ocean resources began to appear in the OLS resolutions. These provisions, and their uptake by intergovernmental agencies with mandates for the conservation of biodiversity, such as CBD and CITES, have increasingly influenced national and international policies on fisheries.

Until the last decade, it was routine for the policy-makers and expert advisors negotiating the Sustainable Fisheries Resolutions to come from fisheries ministries or fisheries subunits of international affairs ministries, whereas the participants negotiating the OLS resolutions covered ocean law and a wide range of other industries, including shipping, seabed mining, pollution, and security. Environment ministries and biodiversity conservation interests began to participate in negotiations of the OLS resolution in the 1990s and only later joined negotiations of the Sustainable Fisheries Resolutions. This evolution in participants in the process had a number of impacts and implications that will be considered in the “Discussion” section.

Although my analysis will focus on the two annual resolutions, some international agreements that have set and adjusted standards for sustainability will be considered briefly. The major Summits of WSSD (http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm) and more recently Rio + 20 (http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture) have provided decadal-scale opportunities to consolidate the views of States on sustainable development and use and will be considered briefly.

Developments in CITES have recently been reviewed elsewhere (Mace et al., in press). The provisions in the biannual CBD Marine and Coastal Decisions increasingly address fisheries issues as well. Some of these developments have also been recently reviewed (Rice et al., in press), but a through treatment of the fisheries—CBD interface is also beyond the scope of this paper. Finally, this manuscript does not review the commitments made at the Committee on Fisheries Investigations (COFI) of FAO, or the commitments and actions by RFMOs and Parties. These fisheries agencies interact with UNGA throughout the Sustainable Fisheries resolution process. They both provide expert advice on state of knowledge and operational feasibility and take high-level guidance from the UNGA resolutions, with regard to how and at what pace the commitments can be achieved. Many other papers in this special volume report on the progress made by these more operational fisheries agencies.

Results

The Fish Stocks Agreement

Several provisions of the FSA provide the policy foundation for interpreting what “sustainability” means in fisheries management. First of all, the FSA is clearly an agreement about use of fish stocks, not about their protection. Paragraph II-5a contains both “long-term sustainability” and “optimal utilization” as the central goals for fisheries management, and the usage theme is present in many related provisions about fisheries goals.

With regard to what comprises sustainability, the FSA clearly considers status of Spawning Biomass (B) just as important as level of Fishing Mortality (F). Paragraph II-5e explicitly calls for “maintaining or restoring populations … above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened”. Similar requirements are present in other paragraphs (e.g. VI-3c and VI-3g) and the operational Annex II, where paragraph A-1 calls on authorities to ensure the reference points used in management “correspond[s] to the state of the resource and of the fishery”, and A-5 requires “that the biomass does not fall below a predefined threshold”. The recent focus on F-based management with B having a subordinate role (ICES, 2012) is deviating from that equality of importance of the two aspects of sustainable use.

In addition the FSA is not solely a single species agreement. Initial efforts to implement the FSA may have emphasised assessing and managing harvests of the target species of fisheries. Nevertheless the FSA included the provisions necessary for placing fisheries in a broader ecosystem context, taking into account the relationship of harvested species to other species in the system (II-5 e: “species belonging to same ecosystem/associated/dependent”), the impacts of the fishery on nontarget species (11-5-g: “protect biodiversity”), and the role of environmental drivers on stock productivity (VI-7: “If a natural phenomenon has a serious adverse impact on the status …”).

UNGA resolutions until WSSD

OLS resolutions: through all the 1990s, both the perambulatory and operational paragraphs of the annual UNGA OLS resolutions (48/263, 49/28, 50/23, 51/24, 51/94, 52/26) made no explicit mention of fisheries, fish stocks, or biodiversity. The focus was on the implementation of the provisions of UNCLOS itself, and encouragement for States to ratify the Convention if they had not already done so. From the outset, however, the resolutions consistently included perambulatory text noting “Conscious that the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole”, foreshadowing later broadening of provisions to address industry sectors, including fisheries, and biodiversity considerations.

By 2000, the OLS resolution had reached 34 paragraphs on legal aspects of UNCLOS and the high-level meaning of sustainable development in the sea. At most, four of those paragraphs possibly could be interpreted as calling very generally for actions on biodiversity conservation. However, in 2000, for the first time a leading perambulatory paragraph announced that the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out, and with which these activities should be consistent”. This phrase now appears in agreements by almost all intergovernmental bodies considering any issues related to the ocean and has been in all subsequent OLS resolutions. This pre-eminence of UNCLOS has had increasing importance as bodies with competence for the conservation of biodiversity and bodies with competence for sectoral management, including fisheries, have increasing found their actions in competition with each other, if not in conflict.

The 2001 OLS resolutions (there were two; 55/7 in January and 56/12 in December) contained many important firsts, setting the stage for WSSD in 2002. The operational paragraphs of the resolution contained enough diverse content to be presented in subdivisions for the first time, a practice continued thereafter. The perambulatory paragraphs contain the first explicit mention of food security and expressions of serious concern about illegal, unauthorized, and unmanaged (IUU) fishing, both provisions bringing fisheries into the OLS discussions for the first time. The operational paragraphs of of 55/7 first called for, and those of 56/12 welcomed, the FAO International Plan of Action (IPOA) on IUU fishing and acknowledged RFMOs as the proper place for IUU fishing to be addressed operationally. Although not directly about fishing, the 2001 resolutions also greatly expanded their provisions on coastal planning and marine scientific research. Specifically, the operational text “Encourages coastal States to enhance their national capacity and establish or improve their marine management systems in order to promote integrated marine management, the protection of the marine environment and ecosystem, and the sustainable development and utilization of marine resources, … ”. This language foreshadows developments in the OLS forum for viewing fisheries in a larger integrated management context, a framework that fisheries management agencies and the fisheries resolutions have been slow to accept (Jennings and Le Quesne, 2012; Kvalvik, 2012).

Fisheries Resolutions: until 1998, there was an annual UNGA resolution (48/118, 49/116, 50/25, 51/26), on fisheries that still carried the name “Pelagic Drift Net Resolution”, reflecting the work at UNGA to ban fishing with large driftnets on the high seas. The central provisions of these resolutions reaffirmed the original resolution on driftnet fishing (46/215), with minor internal developments in the language used. There were much shorter parallel resolutions calling on parties to ratify the FSA in 1994 (49/121), and welcoming its ratification (51/35) in early 1996. Thereafter, starting in 1996, the fisheries resolution used the FSA as is foundation for legitimacy, rather than the UN Convention on Economic Development (UNCED) which had been cited as the policy basis to that point. Also in 1996, the FAO Code of Conduct was referenced for the first time as the primary source of guidance on implementation of the FSA, placing FAO explicitly as the central agency for that role. This central role for FAO has not changed in the succeeding decades. The fisheries resolution itself showed a slight broadening of considerations each year. There were paragraphs annually mentioning bycatch, discards, and many provisions on responsibilities of Flag States for sustainably managing fisheries, particularly with regard to preventing IUU fishing, on the management, control, and surveillance (MCS) measures considered necessary to do so, and on the need to build the capacity to manage fisheries sustainably. Noteworthy increases in the strength of calls for action occurred in 1998, when operational paragraphs went from merely noting a need for action on bycatches to calling on Parties “to take action, … to reduce by-catches, fish discards and post-harvest losses”, and in 1999 when there was the first call for Parties to take action on capacity management. Even the name of the resolution itself broadened in 1998, with illegal fishing and bycatches added to “driftnet” fishing. However, the provisions included very little on the desired status and trends of stocks themselves.

In 2000, the fisheries resolution shifted emphasis substantially. Reference to pelagic driftnet fishing was still in the title of the resolution, but was down to one perambulatory paragraph and in a list of issues in 1 of 15 operational paragraphs. Instead, the resolution focused on the implementation of the provisions of UNCLOS and FSA, including eight paragraphs on RFMO roles and opportunities. The resolution also for the first time referenced the Precautionary Approach (not Principle), and the “duty” of States to exercise control over their fisheries on the high seas. It also for the first time acknowledged other “multilateral agreements” as relevant to fisheries management, acknowledging from the fisheries side that fisheries management is placed in a wider governance context. These are more than just tweaks to wording. They denote a change from UNGA observing that “something should be done” to telling States and RFMOs “do it”.

As with OLS, in 2001, there were two fisheries resolutions; 55/8 and 56/13, obviously following the OLS developments. 56/13 entrenched a new basis for the annual fisheries resolution, by changing the name to the Sustainable Fisheries resolution, a name that persists to the present. 55/8 explicitly highlighted that “the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries sets out principles and global standards of behaviour for responsible practices to conserve, manage and develop fisheries, including guidelines for fishing on the high seas and in areas under the national jurisdiction of other States, and on fishing gear selectivity and practices”. For a UNGA resolution to single out, a specific intergovernmental agency as the legitimate source of “principles and global standards” is an important empowerment of the agency and has been part of the rationale of some fisheries interests to give little attention to developments in other fora such as CBD and CITES, when those bodies consider issues with implications for fisheries (Ridgeway and Rice, 2010). Many issues received expanded treatment in these 2001 resolutions, including stronger expressions of concern about IUU fishing and capacity management in perambulatory paragraphs and stronger language on the responsibilities of RFMOS. For the first time, as well, and building on the Reykjavik Declaration (see below), there was an explicit call for greater action to implement the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the FSA, increasing support for arguments that fisheries measures related to ecosystems (5) and target species and application of precaution (6) should be rooted in the FSA and not in other international agreements and instruments.

Transition agreements

Both the fisheries and the more general conservation and sustainable use communities negotiated and adopted transition documents around the turn of the millennium. For fisheries, the Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in Marine Ecosystems (ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/DOCUMENT/reykjavik/y2198t00_dec.pdf) was negotiated in 2001 and adopted by FAO-COFI at its following meeting. It contained a commitment to apply an ecosystem approach widely in fisheries management. It explicitly recognized the “complex interrelationship between fisheries and other components of the marine ecosystems” and affirms that “incorporation of ecosystem considerations implies more effective conservation of the ecosystem and sustainable use and an increased attention to interactions, such as predator–prey relationships, among different stocks and species of living marine resources; furthermore that it entails an understanding of the impact of human activities on the ecosystem, including the possible structural distortions they can cause in the ecosystem”. Although these provisions greatly expand the basis for fisheries management by making ecosystem considerations central to sustainability, the operational paragraphs were quite cautious in terms of agreement on actions to be taken. “While it is necessary to take immediate action to address particularly urgent problems on the basis of the precautionary approach, it is important to advance the scientific basis for incorporating ecosystem considerations, building on existing and future available scientific knowledge.”(paragraph 5). However, no “particularly urgent problems” were itemized. Rather several priority areas of ecosystem science were listed where more work was considered necessary before there would be a sound basis for actually changing management approaches. Change in practice was clearly to be approached cautiously, and only after adequate knowledge was acquired.

If the fisheries declaration on the ecosystem approach gave more emphasis to further research rather than changes to management, the WSSD Plan of Implementation (http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm), negotiated and adopted in 2002, generally worked at an even higher level of policy commitments. It is a document primarily about sustainable development and not conservation. Following the Introduction (I), the two opening sections are entitled “Poverty Eradication” (II) and “Changing Unsustainable Patterns of Consumption and Production” (III). When the Plan does come to conservation, it is part of a section entitled “Protecting and Managing the Resource Base for Economic and Social Development” (IV). Development is the goal and conservation a necessary step to achieving it. That section is then followed by several large sections reviewing development needs and options on a regional basis and explaining what “sustainability” means for small-scale industries, globalization of economies, human health, and general societal well-being. Conservation does matter, but in the context of how it supports sustainable development and human well-being, which matter more.

In WSSD, there are few explicit commitments to action in marine ecosystems. There is a call to implement the provisions of the Reykjavik Declaration (paragraph 30g) and to ratify and implement the FSA (paragraph 31b). Paragraphs 31 and 32 present the calls for specific actions to achieve sustainable fisheries, including the high profile 31a to “Maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015”. Other parts of paragraph 31 are summarized in Table 1. These fisheries-directed provisions are greatly outnumbered by subsequent paragraphs and subparagraphs on the conservation of biodiversity (explicit in 32a, for example), integrated marine planning and management (34 and 31h), marine protected area (MPA) networks (32c) and a Regular Process for global marine assessments (36b). WSSD clearly considered fisheries merely one of many resource-based industries needing a broader approach to policy and management, but giving “development” at least as much emphasis as “sustainable” in policy-making and management.

Table 1.

Provisions of paragraph 30 of WSSD Plan of Implementation regarding actions to achieve sustainable fisheries.

Feature	Action	Special considerations	Paragraph
Governance regime	Ratify and implement relevant agreements	Where relevant accede to RFMO/As	B
Management framework	Implement the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing	–	C
Management standards	Develop and implement regional and national IPOAs	Special priority of capacity management and IUU fishing	D
Management standards	Establish effective monitoring reporting and enforcement	Core responsibility to Flag States of the fishing vessels	D
Stock status	Maintain or restore to MSY	Achieve by 2015	A

Subparagraphs E–H address access rights, aquaculture, capacity building, and subsidies and are not relevant to interpretations of “sustainability” in the agreement.

UNGA OLS resolutions, post-WSSD

The two resolutions in 2001 for both OLS and sustainable fisheries, combined with the focus on WSSD in 2002, resulted in no new UNGA marine resolutions in 2002. (There was a very short OLS resolution in 2002. However its provisions only set the terms of reference for the 2003 meeting on the annual UN Informal Consultative Process IN 2003, which usually comprised only a small part of the annual OLS resolution.) However, the OLS resolution in 2003 (57/141) welcomed the full WSSD Plan of Action and reaffirmed several of its calls for action. Particularly highlighted were the call for a Regular Process for Global Marine Assessments, for ratification and implementation of the FSA, and “also calls upon States to develop national, regional, and international programmes for halting the loss of marine biodiversity, in particular fragile ecosystems”. The OLS resolutions had moved clearly into the overlap among fisheries management, conservation of biodiversity, and economic development. It was not overruling the standards and agreements developed in fisheries fora, but it was including consideration of fisheries issues within its overall mandate.

The next Sustainable Fisheries resolution was not adopted until January 2004 (58/14). In contrast to the OLS (57/141), little impact of WSSD was apparent. Few provisions regarding the meaning or standards for an ecosystem approach were changed, and the general structure of sections on IUU fishing, capacity management, bycatches, the Code of Conduct and its IPOAs had emerged. One important new provision was that for the first time a target date (2010) for full implementation of an ecosystem approach was included. Also significant was the first use of strong judgemental language in the perambulatory paragraphs, “Deploring the fact that fish stocks, including straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, in many parts of the world are overfished or subject to sparsely regulated and heavy fishing efforts, mainly as a result of, inter alia, unauthorized fishing, inadequate regulatory measures and excess fishing capacity.” This was the first language explicitly critical of fisheries management agencies for using inadequate regulatory measures and not managing fleets or capacity effectively, rather than just noting that all was not well. In the world of negotiated agreements, consensus is only reached on such language when the governance bodies are losing patience with the pace of progress by implementation agencies on long-standing issues. Nonetheless, the operational paragraphs of the same agreement simply asked the UN Secretary General to prepare a report “outlining current risks to the marine biodiversity of vulnerable marine ecosystems including, but not limited to, seamounts, coral reefs, including cold water reefs and certain other sensitive underwater features, related to fishing activities, as well as detailing any conservation and management measures in place”. As with the Reykjavik Declaration, the fisheries resolution was promoting more study of the issues, ahead of any new management or policy initiatives. Sustainability remained whatever the fisheries Code of Conduct and its IPOAs decided was sustainable.

Once the immediate responses to WSSD were addressed in the OLS resolutions, in the following years most paragraphs of that increasingly long resolution returned to issues related to legal aspects of ocean governance and issues of global equity in access to and use of the ocean. The issues of equity are relevant to standards for sustainability in fisheries management, through their consistent affirmation that the social as well economic consequences of using the ocean in any way, including harvesting its resources, must be a core consideration in sectoral decision-making. The focus of the language was primarily on how to achieve greater equity of benefits among developed and developing states, including through technology transfer and capacity building, reaffirming the equal status of social along with economic and ecological aspects of sustainability.

Nevertheless, an increasing number of marine biodiversity issues were brought into the resolution each year, and once adopted, repeated in subsequent resolutions. With the OLS resolutions exceeding three pages of perambulatory language and 100 operational paragraphs annually, a complete inventory of such additions would be lengthy. Key developments, which in each case then continued in subsequent resolutions, can be highlighted. In 2005, resolution 59/24 brought in stronger and more explicit perambulatory language on the threats to corals, seamounts, and other special seabed features; “Reiterating its concern at the adverse impacts on the marine environment and biodiversity, in particular on vulnerable marine ecosystems, including corals, of human activities, such as overutilization of living marine resources, the use of destructive practices … ”. The language was a delicate compromise, in the end not mentioning fisheries explicitly, but inferentially listing it as the first threat via “overutilization of living marine resources” and “destructive practices”. The boundary between the mandate of the OLS resolution and the Sustainable Fisheries resolution was becoming blurred.

This scope of governance mandate was further brought out in the operational calls for an “integrated ecosystem-based approach to management” (paragraph 66) and for “States and international organizations to urgently take action to address, … , destructive practices that have adverse impacts on marine biodiversity and ecosystems, including seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold water corals” (paragraph 70). In the 26 paragraphs in the section on marine biodiversity, developments in the CBD Conference of Parties were highlighted as the foundation for action, and FAO was referenced simply as one of the agencies which should cooperate with the CBD. This was a clear message that on issues of how human uses of the sea affect biodiversity, it is the CBD and not the sectoral agencies that set the standards for sustainability. However, UNGA also acknowledged the complex interaction of sectoral management with biodiversity conservation and created the working group on Biodiversity Beyond National Jusisdiction (BBNJ) as the forum where they should be discussed informally, as the basis for content in future UNGA resolutions.

The 2006 OLS resolution (60/30) gave even greater prominence to the CBD's role in providing scientific and technical guidance on the conservation of biodiversity in ABNJ and reaffirmed its call for integrated management in an ecosystem approach context (paragraph 70). It also took another step in its operational paragraphs towards active engagement in management approaches and (paragraph 77) “reaffirms the need for States to continue their efforts to develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools for conserving and managing vulnerable marine ecosystems, including the possible establishment of marine protected areas, … and the development of representative networks of any such marine protected areas by 2012”, thus fully incorporating the WSSD commitment to MPA networks as a central component of ocean management.

The trend towards an increasing number of paragraphs on marine biodiversity in the OLS resolution reversed in 2007, when 61/222 included only 13 operational paragraphs in the Marine Biodiversity section. Instead, a triad of issues on ocean conservation and use were emerging; marine genetic resources, high-seas MPAs, and environmental impact assessments (EIAs). Although not logically linked in the eyes of professionals in any one of those fields, from the governance perspective the issues became known as “the package”, linked by differences in viewpoint among States. The divisions were somewhat but far from solely along lines of developed - less developed States, and focus on where jurisdiction and authority lies for active oversight of activities associated with each issue. With two of these three issues having direct implications for fisheries management, a global debate about the authorities of States and Agencies to make and implement decisions on location and management of MPA networks and on conduct and standards for EIAs can have direct impacts on what sustainability of fisheries means. However, the debate on these governance issues remains unresolved.

The recent OLS resolutions (62/215 in 2008, 63/111 in 2009, 64/71 in 2010, and 65/31 in 2011) continue the pattern of increasingly stronger texts on past themes and adding areas of concern for the health of oceans as they emerge, such as ocean acidification, ecosystem goods and services, and climate change. The strength of language also has increased, with adjectives like “deep concern” and “serious concern” common. The number operational paragraphs on marine biodiversity has increased steadily to reach 34 of 204 paragraphs by 2010 with another 17 paragraphs specifically addressing the Regular Process for Global Marine Assessments.

UNGA sustainable fisheries resolutions, post-WSSD

The uptake of WSSD concepts in the sustainable fisheries resolutions was moderate and tempered. The number of operational paragraphs increased annually, with sections of the resolutions on a number of themes. Several of the themes most directly relevant to how “sustainability” of fisheries was being interpreted were also themes with the numbers and complexity of provisions growing most rapidly, such as responsible fishing, bycatch, IUU fishing, and MCS (Figure 1). Although the number of provision was increasing, initially the focus remained on study and planning ahead of action. In 2005, resolution 59/25 did include an endorsement of the WSSD B_MSY target, but no specific actions were called for to move towards the target. Rather the resolution merely asked States and RFMOs to “consider on a case-by-case basis and on a scientific basis … the interim prohibition of destructive fishing practices, including bottom trawling that has adverse impacts on [VME]” in ABNJ. In the next year, resolution 60/31 went slightly further, calling on States to take general actions including “implement appropriate conservation and management measures, including spatial and temporal measures, to protect [VME] as a matter of urgency” and “interim targeted protection mechanisms”, as well as “establish criteria on the objectives and management of marine protected areas for fisheries purposes”. Management actions were called for only to address threats to the most specialized ecosystem components. Otherwise, the calls were only to begin a process that might ultimately lead to use additional measures, including possibly MPAs.

Figure 1.

Trends in the number of operational paragraphs in the various sections of the annual UNGA sustainability fisheries resolution between 2004 and 2011. Abbreviations in the legend are: FSA, Fish Stocks Agreement; Other, all issues not covered in other sections; IUU, Illegal, Unreported or Unregulated Fishing; MCS, Management, control, and surveillance; Cap Red, Capacity Reduction; Driftnet, high seas driftnet fishing; Bycatch, Bycatch mitigation and discard reduction; Cap Del, Capacity Development; Intl Coop, International Cooperation.

By 2007, patience with the pace of advancement of conservation measures in fisheries was wearing thin. After extended deliberations, paragraphs 83–87 of resolution 61/105 were adopted, which:

“call[s] upon [States and RFMOs] to regulate bottom fisheries to adopt and implement measures, in accordance with [the precautionary approach, the ecosystem approach and international law] for their respective regulatory areas as a matter of priority, but not later than 31 December 2008”:

To assess, …, whether individual bottom fishing activities would have significant adverse impacts on [VMEs] and to ensure that if it is assessed that these activities would have serious adverse impacts, they are managed to prevent such impacts, or not authorized to proceed

“to close such areas to bottom fishing and ensure that such activities do not proceed unless conservation and management measures have been established …”

and continued with additional prescriptive guidance on conservation measures that had to be in place before deep-sea fishing in ABNJ was allowed to commence.

This language, allowing fishing only after conservation needs had been evaluated and effective measures to meet those needs were in place, represents a turning point in fisheries policy globally. Although the need and technical basis for extra caution in new and developing fisheries was clearly laid out in the Code of Conduct (FAO, 1995), the Code and its technical annexes are voluntary guidance, whereas the provisions of UNGA resolutions are considered to be full policy commitments. Although the benchmarks for meeting the provisions in resolution 61/105 remained to be developed by an expert process coordinated by FAO and negotiated as the FAO Deep Sea Fisheries Guidelines (FAO, 2009), the entire process was completed within 24 months. These guidelines did not change the reference points used as benchmarks for sustainability of fisheries. However, their breadth of application to ecosystem components impacted by fisheries, and the need for mandatory measures to be in place sufficient to provide confidence that the benchmarks will be met before fishing is authorized, certainly redefine the position of ecological sustainability in fisheries policy, even if they do not change what is considered sustainability for target species.

The importance UNGA attached to this guidance was reinforced just 3 years later in resolution 64/72, where, building on a review of progress on the implementation of the provisions on deep-sea fisheries in 61/105, the resolution calls for RFMOS and States “to take the following urgent actions in areas beyond national jurisdiction: Finally, in 2010, States and RFMOs were being required to take action rather than just conduct studies. Jurisdictions managing fisheries are clearly accountable for the sustainability of the ecosystem footprint of the fisheries they manage, not solely for their impacts on the target species.

• Conduct the assessments called for in paragraph 83 (a) of resolution 61/105, consistent with the Guidelines, and ensure that vessels do not engage in bottom fishing until such assessments have been carried out;

• … identify where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur and adopt conservation and management measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems consistent with the Guidelines, or close such areas to bottom fishing until conservation and management measures have been established, as called for in paragraph 83 (c) of resolution 61/105;

• Establish and implement appropriate protocols for the implementation of paragraph 83 (d) of resolution 61/105, including definitions of what constitutes evidence of an encounter with a vulnerable marine ecosystem, in particular threshold levels and indicator species,

• Adopt conservation and management measures, including monitoring, control and surveillance measures, on the basis of stock assessments and the best available scientific information, to ensure the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks and non-target species,”

Since 61/105, the number of provisions in the annual fisheries resolution has continued to increase, but few of them are directly relevant to benchmarks for sustainability. In 2008, resolution 62/177 endorsed the FAO Deep-sea Fishery Guidelines, as well as proposing a set of best practices on RFMO governance. It still dealt with new issues through calls for study rather than actions, including calls for a scoping study of climate change and fisheries and for FAO to commence development of guidelines on MPAs for fisheries. Paragraph 8 of 63/112 in 2009 did include language confirming that sustainability was about the status of exploited stocks at least as much as exploitation, calling on jurisdictions “, to apply stock-specific precautionary reference points, … to ensure that populations of harvested stocks, … and, where necessary, associated or dependent species, are maintained at, or restored to, sustainable levels, and to use these reference points for triggering conservation and management action”. It is not enough to maintain F at sustainable levels. Stocks depleted by previous overfishing must be rebuilt as well.

One final provision of potential importance to interpreting “sustainability” occurs in resolution 65/48 from 2011 “Recognizing the importance of marine species occupying low trophic levels in the ecosystem and for food security, and the need to ensure their long-term sustainability, …”. This language resembles the language used in the mid 2000s to convey to fisheries management agencies the global policy concerns with the impacts of deep-sea fisheries on seafloor communities. If the spotlight is indeed being turned on fisheries on lower trophic levels, there may be further evolution towards prescriptive guidance comparable with paragraphs 83–91 of 61/105, if efforts by fisheries management agencies to document the sustainability of such fisheries in an ecosystem approach context are not convincing.

Discussion

The parallel streams of UNGA resolutions, one from the broad perspective of governance of the seas, and the other prepared explicitly on sustainable fisheries provide several key insights into how the global policy community interprets the sustainability of fisheries. The OLS resolutions rarely include technical details of exactly how fisheries should be managed, beyond using best practices as identified by competent authorities. Rather, the resolutions focus on the context in which sustainability is evaluated. In the 1990s, this consisted of little more than ensuring there were bodies with competence to manage fisheries, an expectation that was assumed to be a given within national jurisdictions, but required States to form or join RFMOs on the high seas, and provide the RFMOs the capacity to manage fisheries.

Through the 2000s, however, the expectations for the authorities managing fisheries increased in several important ways. OLS resolutions were making increasing more specific calls for fisheries to take action to address unsustainable impacts on seafloor habitats and communities, whereas the sustainability fisheries resolutions were still emphasising the need for more study of such issues. In addition, the OLS resolutions were calling with increasing specificity for the establishment of networks of MPAs both within national jurisdictions and in ABNJ and for fully integrated management of all uses of the ocean, including fisheries.

With regard to implications for how “sustainability” is interpreted in fisheries management, these OLS provisions represent a change in who gets to interpret what “sustainability” means. If integrated management is the foundation for the governance of ocean uses, part of integrated management is the application of consistent standards and benchmarks across sectors (Ridgeway and Rice, 2010). By implication, some forum then must exist above the level of sectoral management where such standards and benchmarks are agreed. Likewise, if a specific management tool, MPAs and MPA networks, are being endorsed as a necessary conservation measure, to the extent that such networks will impact the conduct and outcome of fisheries, the authorities developing and managing the networks must have a forum to coordinate their efforts with fisheries management authorities nationally and in ABNJ.

The OLS resolutions have one more important feature relative to how “sustainability” is interpreted. There has been consistent reaffirmation that development and poverty elimination are overarching goals of ocean policy, so social sustainability and economic sustainability are not subordinate to ecological sustainability.

With regard to the sustainable fisheries resolution, as with the OLS resolutions, provisions through the 1990s primarily were about establishing and empowering agencies for management of fisheries and implementing the core provisions of the FSA. It was after the Reykjavik Declaration for fisheries and WSSD generally that the breadth of provisions about the sustainability of fisheries has increased. The basic benchmarks for the sustainability of fisheries on target species have not been changed in any important ways, although there have been several explicit reaffirmations that benchmarks for the status of the harvested stocks are at least as important as benchmarks for the exploitation rate. The changes are in the scope of application; fisheries are expected to be able to demonstrate the sustainability of the ecosystem footprint of their operations, not just their impact on the target species. Likewise, the social objectives of fishing, and the role of fisheries in the development agendas of less developed States, are key priorties for States and must be accommodated in national and regional policies in ways that do not compromise the ecosystems being used. This will pose difficult challenges for fisheries policy, and solutions are not obvious within the fisheries sector alone.

The impetus for the evolution in content and tone of these resolutions is complex. Looking narrowly at these changes in policies of the developed world, the tendency is to attribute the evolution to growing ascendency of environmental issues in policy-making (Suárez de Vivero, 2007; van Hoof and van Tatenhove, 2009). That is definitely a factor, but it is far from the whole story. The endorsement of an ecosystem approach and precaution in the FSA made it inevitable that fisheries policy would have to broaden the range of considerations addressed in fisheries management, making a convergence of governance and policies, including interpretations of sustainability, between fisheries and biodiversity conservation inevitable (Garcia et al., in press). Possibly even more important is the growing insistence of the developing world that they are entitled to an equitable share of global marine resources as part of social and economic development policies, as reflected in both the WSSD and Rio + 20 documents. This is raising the prominence of the need to discuss any interpretation of ecological sustainability simultaneously with appropriate standards and benchmarks for global social sustainability.

A related emergent message from the evolution of UNGA fisheries resolutions through the 2000s is that there is a time-lag between the provision of generic guidance on individual issues in OLS resolutions and the inclusion of the same issues in the sustainable fisheries resolutions. Then, there is a further lag to action, as the initial treatment of new issues in the sustainable fisheries resolution are calls for study and review, with at most very generic acknowledgement that action is needed on an emerging issue. This is a rationale sequence, but may not be satisfying the expectations of policy-makers. After several calls for greater conservation measures for special components of seafloor ecosystems, particularly corals and sponges, in the OLS resolutions immediately after WSSD did not result in concrete changes in fishing practices, the OLS language by the mid 2000s had become stronger and more prescriptive. Moreover, the nature of the negotiations of the annual sustainable fisheries resolutions changed, with conservation interests increasingly participating in those meetings as well. ENGOs began to be present and active as observers, many States included members of national conservation ministries in their delegations negotiating the sustainable fisheries resolutions, and some States with at most minor engagement in fisheries became active in the negotiations, promoting strongly conservation-oriented language. Negotiations of the deep sea fishery provisions were increasing difficult, and in 2007, resolution 61/105 included language far more directive and obligations far more stringent than ever seen in a UNGA fisheries resolution.

This pattern of policy drivers and new participants from outside the traditional fisheries community increasingly influencing the agenda of fisheries policy and management has some implications that go far beyond debate about which reference points to apply and which tools to use in achieving compliance with them. Through the 2000s, the OLS resolutions have increasingly stressed both the need for integrated management of activities in the seas, and the use of a particular management tool, MPAs and MPA networks, to achieve sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Both of these calls were featured in the negotiated outcome of the Rio + 20 summit, “The Future We Want” in 2012. Sustainability of fisheries does get attention on the document, but the main fisheries provisions, by themselves, represent little change from concepts currently in play (Table 2). However, the call (paragraph 162) for a decision by 2014 on the preferred approach to establishing a governance regime that ensures integrated management for sustainable development and use of the oceans, including possible negotiating a new “implementing agreement” of equal status with the FSA but applying to all marine biodiversity not explicitly covered by the FSA, combined with a strong endorsement for networks of MPAs both within and beyond national jurisdictions, foreshadow a potential change in who is defining the meaning of sustainability in fisheries. We may soon see the standards and benchmarks for fisheries set in fora where fisheries interests and fisheries experts are just a few of many voices and perspectives at the table. The ability of fisheries jurisdictions to demonstrate success at setting sound operational standards for sustainable fisheries in an ecosystem context, and achieving them through effective management could influence greatly the leverage those jurisdictions have to retain the ability to set the full policy frameworks for fisheries management.

Table 2.

Provisions of the Oceans and Seas section of the Rio + 20 outcome document that are directly about fisheries.

Feature	Action	Special consideration	Paragraph
Management framework	Fully implement the FSA	Full recognition of special requirements of developing States	169
Management framework	Ratify and implement FAO Port State Agreement	Seek early entry into force	171
Management standards	Implement Code of Conduct, IPOAs and Guidelines	Full recognition of special requirements of developing States	169
Management standards	Eliminate IUU fishing	Apply long list of standard fisheries management measures to do this	170
Management standards	Conduct performance reviews of RFMOs	Take actions on recommendations from the reviews	172
Management standards	Conserve coral reefs for multiple human values and high vulnerability	Lists multiple threats including overfishing and destructive fishing practices	176
Management actions	Take the necessary to meet stock status target	Shortest time feasible, considering biological characteristics of stock	168
Management actions	Develop science-based management plans	Apply long list of measures typical of sound fisheries management	168
Management actions	Reduce or suspend catch and effort	Commensurate with status of the stock	168
Management actions	Manage bycatch, discards, and other adverse ecosystem impacts	Eliminate destructive fishing practices as part of ecosystem impacts	168
Management actions	Enhance actions to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems	Use impact assessments as tool for this outcome	168
Management actions	Reaffirm importance of area-based conservation measures including MPAs	Special acknowledge of CBD Aichi Targets; note MPAs are for both the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use	177
Stock status	Maintain or restore to MSY	Still strive for 2015	168

Paragraphs 173 and 174 are about subsidies and economic issues of fisheries and not directly relevant to how “sustainability” should be interpreted.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments in improving the readability of this manuscript.

Author notes

Handling Editor: Jason Link