Harvest control rules triggered at or near the target reference point are intended to bring or maintain the stock to the target. The rules triggered at the limit reference point are designed to bring a stock back to a biologically safe level and prevent an accident. Under difficult circumstances, managers may have to close a fishery that has exceeded a reference point until the stock has recovered. According to the agreement, management strategies should ensure that the risk of exceeding the limit is „very low“. 17 target benchmarks „should meet management objectives“15 and should not be exceeded „on average“. 16 Where the size of the stock falls below or fishing mortality exceeds a specified reference point, managers implement a `pre-agreed conservation and management measure`, known as the `harvest control rule`. The details depend on whether a target or limit is exceeded. Since the adoption of the Fish Stocks Agreement, the international community has reached consensus on the need to improve the identification of fishing vessels by requiring the use of unique and permanent identification numbers. These figures will help to respond to the call of the Review Conference, which resumed in 2010, „[t]he efforts […] Create a single vessel identification system as part of a comprehensive global record of fishing vessels. This will then contribute to efforts to combat illegal fishing. In 2013, the IMO removed an exemption for fishing vessels from its „IMO numbering system“. Since then, RFMOs have taken swift action to impose IMO numbers on all authorized vessels.
The United Nations Fish Stocks Convention aims to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks under the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement (formal agreement implementing the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks) is a multilateral treaty established by the United Nations to improve the cooperative management of fishery resources covering large areas. and are of economic and environmental interest to a number of countries. As of December 2016, the treaty had been ratified by 91 contracting parties, including 90 states and the European Union. [2] In addition to identifying and tracking fishing vessels, strict port controls are among the most effective ways for governments to catch those who break the rules. Only three of the five regional tuna management organizations have introduced port State controls, which need to be better integrated into national and regional processes to be effective. The analysis shows that the implementation of the Fish Stocks Agreement has been inconsistent. Many stocks are still overexploited, with some threatened with imminent collapse. At the same time, the parties of the different RFOs are often unable to act because they do not reach a consensus. Administrative organizations can only be effective if members have the political will to take action to achieve the objectives of the agreement. According to the agreement, „border reference points set limits to limit harvesting within safe biological limits within which stocks can achieve the highest possible sustainable yield.“ 14 Those points constitute the outer limit of sustainable fishing.
The agreement aims to achieve this objective by establishing a framework for cooperation in the conservation and management of these resources. It promotes order in the oceans through the effective management and conservation of the resources of the high seas, including by establishing detailed minimum international standards for the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks; ensure that measures for the conservation and management of these stocks in areas of national jurisdiction and adjacent high seas are compatible and consistent; ensure the effective implementation of these measures on the high seas; and recognition of the specific conservation, management, development and participation needs of developing States for the two types of stocks mentioned above. Article 5(d) of the UNFSA requires States to cooperate to „assess the impact of fisheries, other human activities and environmental factors on target stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent on target stocks“. Subsection 5(e) provides that they are to `take conservation and management measures, if necessary, for species belonging to, related to or dependent on target stocks in order to maintain or restore populations of those species above the level at which their reproduction could be seriously threatened`. Article 6(3)(b) of the Agreement requires States cooperating through RFMOs to implement the precautionary approach by establishing stock-specific benchmarks based on fishing mortality or stock size and to undertake to act in the event of a breach of those benchmarks. Annex II to the Agreement sets out how these benchmarks should be established and calls for the adoption of two types: conservation or delimitation reference points and management reference points or targets. Sharks are among the species most threatened by tuna fishing. For this reason, the resumption of the Review Conference in 2010 recommended that States, individually and through RFOs, „strengthen the conservation and management of sharks“. 47 Among the steps likely to contribute to the achievement of that objective are species-specific requirements for the collection of data on sharks and the development of conservation and management measures for those sharks, whether caught in targeted fisheries or as by-catches. Therefore, the protection of sharks is not only an important responsibility for orptics, but also serves as an indicator to determine whether the obligations to implement the ecosystem approach are being met. Each of the bodies responsible for the management of tuna species has stocks below the size necessary to support the maximum sustainable yield. As noted in the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,7 the overall status of highly migratory fish stocks and straddling fish stocks has not improved since the first Review Conference in 2006.8 Since 2010, the overall status of highly migratory fish stocks9 and straddling fish stocks10 has declined.
When information on shark species is available, 60% of them remain potentially overexploited or depleted.11 Between 2013 and 2015, nine RFMOs issued requirements for figures that cost nothing to obtain. Most of them entered into force on 1 January 2016. Despite this important progress, member States of regional management organizations continue to allow vessels without identification numbers to fish in Convention areas. RFMOs should extend the requirements to active fishing vessels of any size to ensure that all can be identified. Highly migratory fish are a term that has its origin in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It refers to fish species that undertake marine migrations and also have a wide geographical distribution, and generally refers to tuna and tuna- related species, shark, marlin and swordfish. Pregnant fish stocks are particularly vulnerable to overfishing due to inefficient management arrangements and non-compliance by fisheries interests. Parties to UNFSA have met twice to review its implementation: at a review conference in 20063 and at a resumed review conference in 2010.4 Each meeting developed recommendations to improve cooperation and better manage global stocks.5 Parties will conduct a third review in May 2016. The agreement also requires all RFMOs to maintain reasonably healthy fish populations. However, this assessment showed that each of the bodies responsible for the management of tuna species has stocks below the size necessary to support the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), with the largest average catch being able to be taken from a stock without significantly affecting reproduction. Many of these populations also do not have management plans that would support recovery.
The present letter reviews the progress made in the implementation of the Fish Stocks Agreement on the basis of a review of the status of certain highly migratory stocks and the effectiveness of RFMO measures in fulfilling specific mandates. .