Global commitments and trends in Fisheries and ocean policies

Intervention bythe NorwegianMinister of Fisheries and Coastal AffairsSvein Ludvigsenat the10 ^th> Conference of Ministers of Fisheries of the North Atlantic (NAFMC), 30-31 May 2005.

• ppt. presentation

As you all know, global commitments and agreements are increasingly setting the standards for international fisheries policies both on regional and national level. A significant part of this development is that fisheries policies have become a part of the environmental agenda as well.

In the Johannesburg-declaration we have, for instance, committed ourselves to restore all depleted fish stocks before 2015 and establish a network of marine protected areas before 2012.

The UN-fisheries resolution of 2004 is very clear on the need to avoid destructive fishing practices and protect vulnerable habitats. The recent St. John’s ministerial declaration promises a range of measures to combat overfishing.

These are all important political signals in the sense that they convey a broad international consensus on the need to now take concerted action to achieve sustainable management of marine living resources. But the question remains; how far can global agreements take us in solving deep-rooted regional implementation problems?

Causes for overfishing

I believe that the underlying causes behind overfishing, including IUU-fishing, are:

• lack of political commitment to enforcement and implementation of existing regulations
• political failure to manage domestic and regional overcapacity.
• failure to agree about (criteria for) allocation of fish resources between states.

30 years after EEZs were established, we still struggle with the allocation of fish resources. There are problems with respect to allocations both between coastal states and within the framework of RFMOs. These unsolved allocations problems - or lack of ability to divide among ourselves limited marine resources - are one of the major driving causes behind overfishing in our region. We clearly need to find a way out of the present political deadlock.

In our region, where we pride ourselves in having the some of the most advanced regimes for marine resource management, it is really inexcusable that many of our shared stocks are in such a dismal condition. Moreover, until we solve the problems in our own backyard, we should refrain from moralizing to others. Only we have the key to the solution. It is not likely that issues that we are not able to agree upon and solve on a regional level can be solved by lifting the issue to the global level.

Norwegian policies and measures

I believe that an efficient network of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) is one of the most important institutional elements, to achieve sustainable harvesting of high seas resources.

I think it is fair to say that such a network is not fully in place yet, - neither with respect to geographical scope, mandate or efficiency. We should therefore make it our priority to strengthen these organizations. In many cases, mandates of RFMOs need to be revised, to fully reflect all the provisions of UN-Fish stock agreement and generally to strengthen the internal decision-making processes. We also believe that it is important to ensure that the mandates allow for incorporation of biodiversity and ecosystem considerations into management decisions. We are therefore pleased that NEAFC now is in the process of revising its convention. Norway will propose to establish a similar process for NAFO at the next annual meeting.

One important element is the fight against overfishing is that sanctions are effective in deterring future breach of regulations. In addition to adequate levels of fines, the benefit should be confiscated and in serious cases the authorization to fish should be withdrawn or suspended. In order to level the playing field, this issue should be addressed within the RFMOs. At the recent COFI-meeting and in St. John’s, performance reviews of RFMOs were discussed. Performance reviews have become a natural part of modern public administration. I believe that reviews can assist us in improving the performance of RFMOs as well. Most likely it is possible to develop some overarching criteria or common guidelines for these kind of assessments.

It seems natural to look the main features in UNCLOS and UN fishstocks agreement. The development of criteria could for instance be done under auspices of FAO. However, since RFMOs are such a diverse group, how to carry out performance reviews, should be decided by the contracting parties, on a case-by-case basis.

Let me end this part of my intervention with a word of caution. I believe that it is important that we on the fisheries side take overfishing and the environmental impact of fisheries seriously. If RFMOs in the coming years fail to provide a forum where states can agree on both management and conservation measures, we will gradually become marginalized. And we might see the establishment of new global mechanisms, created because we are perceived by the international community not to do our job.

Flag state and port state measures

We have been struggling with the problem of irresponsible flag states and flags of convenience for years, with meager practical results. I support the tabled proposals to establish guidelines on flag states performance and to better define the genuine link between the flag state and the vessels flying their flag. I do, however, seriously doubt that this will have much effect on notorious repeat offenders.Maybe we need to ask ourselves if we do not HAVE to take action against vessels - clearly fishing under flags of convenience with obvious lack of any genuine link to the “flag state” – and arrest them also in international waters - and bring them to harbor.

Is it likely that the government of the flag-states will protest ? Do they even know that these vessels fly they flag? Why shall we behave as “gentlemen” when it only results in uncontrolled exploitation of our resources?

I also think port measures are promising. As you know, in March COFI adopted an international instrument, a so called “model scheme”, describing basic and minimum port State measures. Norway strongly supports the implementation of basic port State measures on a regional level and has already acted upon the model scheme by suggesting that NEAFC develops a comprehensive system for such control.

Fish is Food

Let me end my intervention by making a small diversion from my original topic. The attention of both media and the international community at large, has during the last decade focused strongly on protection and conservation of fish stocks and other marine resources.

We must bear in mind that utilization of the living marine resources and the marine ecosystem serves a purpose; - namely to provide food and welfare. Our challenge is to keep marine ecosystems healthy and productive, so we can optimize our harvesting of them. Fish are still food.