For personal and professional reasons, I have sustained an interest in the fisheries of the South-west Atlantic and the challenges of managing these fisheries without a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO). I have expressed my history and perspectives regarding that fishery and region (here and here).
I have rarely read much about the potential options for an RFMO when two key players (Argentina and the UK/Falkland Island Government - FIG) refuse to sit at the same table. This is paradoxical, especially since my last job in Argentina was a joint stock assessment with the FIG in 1991!
Squid jigger. Source @mercopress
One of the authors, Cornell Overfield, sent me the paper. I found it engaging because it examines the legal options for managing the fishery at Mile 201 in Argentina and the FIG.
If I had coffee with the authors, I would have asked whether they explored which membership statehood option FIG would have in a potential RFMO. Should FIG content be represented as the UK or a semi-independent government? I believe Argentina’s position could be softened if FIG, within the framework of the UNFSA (United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement), employs the concept of “fishing entities” for the first time in a binding UN instrument.
Although the agreement's text never explicitly mentions Taiwan, “fishing entities” generally includes it. While the international community does not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state for membership in international governmental organisations that require statehood, the UN's designation of Taiwan as a “fishing entity” allows Taiwan to address challenges related to its political status while participating in RFMOs. This could similarly apply to FIG and thus facilitate an operational RFMO without Argentina losing face.
I think Argentina is shooting itself in the foot with its attitude; RFMOs focus on fisheries management, not sovereignty... and I say this as someone involved in the 1982 war...
In any case, I present my key takeaways from the paper below; it is a good read.
The article "Options for Sustainable High Seas Fisheries Management in the Southwest Atlantic" by Cornell Overfield and Jessica Yllemo discusses the urgent need for effective fisheries management in the Southwest Atlantic to prevent overfishing and stock collapse. The region lacks a dedicated Regional Fishery Management Organization (RFMO), leaving its rich fisheries vulnerable to unsustainable practices. They propose several policy options to address this issue, establishing an RFMO as the ideal solution.
Introduction
The introduction highlights the international concern over the sustainability and security of fisheries in the high seas off South American exclusive economic zones (EEZs). The absence of RFMOs in the Southeast Pacific and Southwest Atlantic exacerbates the risk of overfishing and stock collapse, threatening the livelihoods of those dependent on these fisheries.
Background
The freedom to fish on the high seas is not absolute and must be conducted responsibly. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement (FSA) mandate cooperation among States for conserving and managing living resources. Despite these agreements, overfishing and stock depletion continue globally, with RFMOs being the best tool for sustainable fisheries management. However, territorial disputes between Argentina and the United Kingdom have hindered the establishment of an RFMO in the Southwest Atlantic.
The Best Option: An RFMO and the Other Tools It Unlocks
The authors argue that implementing an RFMO covering the Southwest Atlantic’s straddling fish stocks is the ideal policy response (something I agree). A Southwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SWAFO) should focus on stock assessments, quota allocations, limiting gear types, and enforcement. The SWAFO’s boundaries should align with FAO Major Fishing Area 41, and negotiators should sidestep sovereignty issues by restricting the SWAFO’s area to high seas zones. The SWAFO should include key States such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Taiwan, Spain, South Korea, Uruguay, and the UK (or directly the FIG?), and follow best practices for fisheries management.
Subsidies Restrictions and High Seas Marine Protected Areas Based on an RFMO
The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies prohibits subsidies for vessels engaged in IUU fishing or fishing overfished stocks. An RFMO could trigger these obligations, leading to more objective enforcement of subsidy cuts. Additionally, the Agreement on Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) allows States to designate high seas Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which an RFMO could facilitate. (Yet the compliance aspects of those MPAS in ABNJ are still unresolved).
Lesser Options
Multilateral Solutions: Partial RFMO or Data Clearing House
A partial RFMO missing key States is still beneficial, as it would pressure holdouts to comply with conservation measures and improve scientific understanding of fisheries. If an RFMO is not feasible, a multilateral advisory board could serve as a data-sharing hub, helping set national fishing targets and potentially leading to an RFMO.
Extended Continental Shelf Restrictions
Coastal States could unilaterally prohibit bottom trawling on their extended continental shelves. Argentina has proposed creating a benthic protected area in the Agujero Azul, where bottom trawling would be banned. This measure would protect vital seabed regions, but enforcing it may be challenging. (As well as it does nothing for the squid jigging fishery, which is the biggest issue there)
International Treaty Ratification and Implementation
Coastal States should ratify and implement relevant international treaties, including the FSA, the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, and the BBNJ Agreement. These treaties reinforce cooperative management of fish stocks and offer tools to control IUU fishing. (yet other tnan an RFMO, there are minimal ways of enforcement beyond Flag state, which has not worked so far)
Novel High Seas Enforcement Interpretations
Coastal States could consider creative measures based on novel interpretations of maritime law to disrupt foreign fishing vessels on the high seas. For example, they could target vessels exploiting forced labour or engaging in AIS spoofing. However, these measures have major drawbacks and may not improve fisheries’ sustainability. (Agreed, nothing on that touches overfishing, and the flag states in question are already targeted in fisheries under RFMOS, with little to no avail on the labour side)
Conclusion
The article concludes that States actively fishing in the Southwest Atlantic must act to ensure the sustainability of regional fish stocks. Establishing a comprehensive RFMO is the best policy solution to meet national economic interests and international legal obligations. Recent positive steps between Argentina and the UK may signal an opening to implement this solution. Unilateral policy options, such as ratifying international treaties and restricting trawling on extended continental shelves, are also worth considering. Ultimately, failure to establish an RFMO may lead to the collapse of regional fish stocks. (Fully agreed)