TL: TWO DRIFTNET RESOLUTIONS - A CRITIQUE SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: December 1, 1989 Keywords: greenpeace legislation un us driftnets oceans fisheries fish deaths marine mammals protection japan fareast / Comments on A/C.2/44/L.30/Rev.1 and A/C.2/44/L.28/Rev.1 United Nations Member States have two draft Resolutions on Driftnets before them. Though they share many common features, there are some important differences between them. Greenpeace has analysed them both and come up with the following conclusions. THE UNITED STATES RESOLUTION (L.30) In summary, L.30 * Calls for the collection of data on the impact of large-scale pelagic driftnetting; * Recommends that states review the existing data on the effects of large-scale pelagic driftnetting, and co-operatively regulate and monitor the adverse effects of the practice; * Recommends an immediate ban on driftnet fishing in the South Pacific region, and moratorium on all high seas driftnet fishing elsewhere in 1992 unless it is agreed that the unacceptable impacts of the practice can be prevented; * Asks that the question be placed on the Agenda of the 45th Session of the General Assembly. THE JAPANESE RESOLUTION (L.28) In summary, L.28 * Calls on states to regularly review existing data on driftnet fishing, and to co-operate with each other to regulate and monitor the practice so as to mitigate its adverse effects; * Recommends that regulatory measures be taken, including a moratorium, but on the proviso that scientific data demonstrates the need for such measures; * Recommends that an ad hoc group be established to prepare a scientific analysis of the impacts of driftnet fishing and provide a report to the General Assembly at its forty-sixth session. BOTH RESOLUTIONS * Ask the other components of the United Nations system to include consideration of the driftnets issue in their activities; * Request the Secretary-General to bring the Resolution to widespread notice, and to report on its implementation to the 45th Session of the General Assembly. The fundamental differences between the two resolutions are: * L.30 proposes that the states which are currently undertaking large-scale pelagic driftnetting should work with the international community and collect more data on the subject. L.28 proposes instead that existing data should be reviewed. * L.30's operative paragraphs deal with large-scale pelagic driftnets. This implies driftnetting in international waters, beyond national territorial waters and EEZ jurisdiction. Only a preambular statement concerns driftnet fishing within national jurisdiction. L.28 relates to driftnets generally throughout the resolution with no distinctions. * L.30 proposes an immediate ban on the technique in the South Pacific, and a global moratorium on high seas driftnetting by 1992 unless the proponents of the technique can show it to be safe. L.28 proposes a moratorium only if it can be proven that one is absolutely necessary. Each of these main differences will now be examined in turn. COLLECT MORE DATA OR USE EXISTING DATA? It is clearly in the interests of science that more data should be collected on the subject of driftnets. To take the approach that on a fishing technique of such known potential destructiveness, there is a need only to consider the existing data is not responsible. On this basis, Greenpeace has no hesitation in favouring L.30 over L.28. LARGE-SCALE OR ALL DRIFTNETS TO BE COVERED? Greenpeace believes it is important to distinguish between the nature of high seas, large-scale, (pelagic) driftnets and smaller driftnets. So-called coastal gillnetting, whether set or drift, is the most widely use fishing technique world-wide. It has been shown to be, if properly used and controlled, a quite selective and value producing form of fishing for a number of reasons. The conditions under which this coastal driftnetting usually occurs are such that it poses far less of a problem. Most such fisheries have some or all of the following characteristics: * Nets are deployed by fish workers who know the specific concentrations and locations of particular species, or target particular species and concentrations of fish by using gear which is visible or acoustically detectable by species other than the target species. * The nets can be deployed in known areas where the target species is located, and not in areas where non-target and undesired species of fish are located, nor in areas where species are highly mixed (undesirable from a labour point of view as well as an ecological point of view). * Use of the nets can be avoided in areas where there are known concentrations of non-fish species, such as around bird colonies, nesting and breeding areas, whale migration routes, seal rookeries or migration routes. * Shorter lengths of net can be used. High seas driftnets lend themselves to being lost during bad weather, or through being in contact with vessels which destroy them. * The nets are not usually used in excessive density. The over all fishing effort is usually controlled in relation to estimated potential of the target species, and likelihood of a high degree of impact on non-target species is lowered. * The nets are more easily monitored and controlled by local authorities, given the relative proximity to the coast and to existing enforcement authorities, who impose licensing, reporting and off-loading requirements. * The nets can be readily, and quickly, retrieved in the event of unforeseen circumstances, such as storms, incoming vessel traffic, the presence of vulnerable species or the presence of floating debris which may destroy the gear. The existing high seas, pelagic fleets fulfill none of the above criteria and indeed do not have even the potential to adequately do so by the very nature of their operation. It is extremely unlikely that an international management regime could be effectively established to control the unacceptable impacts of a high seas driftnet fishery. This is the fundamental difference in nature between high seas driftnetting and coastal driftnetting. Also, given the inherent lack of concentration of resources outside the coastal zones, and especially beyond the EEZs (continental shelf areas) high seas driftnets require a much greater amount of netting in order to ensure an economic volume of catches. Furthermore, since little is known about migration patterns of highly migratory species of fish, the extent of deployment must also be increased. This compounds the problem of the interception by the nets of other highly migratory species, such as marine mammals, on the high seas. Much more is known about coastal species of marine mammals than those frequenting the high seas. High seas driftnets, given the failure of the Law of the Sea to adequately provide specific guidelines for their control and accountability for them on the high seas, are fundamentally lacking all of the possible safety measures that coastal gillnets, if properly regulated, have. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that they could ever be considered in the same manner. The costs of effective monitoring, enforcement and assessment of the impacts of these fleets almost certainly could never be expected to be met, certainly not by providing "independent" observers. Consequently, the establishment of rules regarding deployment of certain types of fishing gear which might conflict with national sovereignty should not be necessary. National and bilateral agreements should be able to effectively control the practice within EEZs. While there may be problems in some coastal driftnet fisheries, Greenpeace does not believe that they constitute anything like such a grave danger to the global marine ecosystem. On this basis, L.30, because its scope is limited to high seas pelagic driftnets, is more appropriate. ACTION NOW? ... OR (POSSIBLY) LATER? One of the main features of L.30 is that it calls for an immediate ban on driftnetting in the South Pacific region. This is, in practice, a call for international recognition of the recently developed South Pacific Convention on driftnets. All nations should respect the very serious approach to the issue being pursued by the South Pacific states, which fear that there may be substantial economic impacts, especially for some of the smaller states, from a continuation of the practice of driftnetting. L.30 also calls for action to be taken by 1992 for a global moratorium unless it is agreed that unacceptable impacts can be avoided. L.28, however, neither makes reference to the Convention already negotiated in the South Pacific, nor calls for an automatic moratorium. Instead, it allows for a moratorium in the event that available scientific data necessitates such measures. There is no encouragement expressed in L.28 for the collection of more data (see above). The likely outcome if L.28 were to be accepted is then that more data would not be collected, and the available scientific data would not increase in volume very substantially. The likelihood of a moratorium on driftnetting ever being brought in under L.28 is very slight. On the other hand, L.30 encourages the collection of more data and, furthermore, bases the answer to the question of whether there should be a moratorium on whatever new information can be gathered which might show that the practice was safe. This is a very important distinction, and is in harmony with recent moves in several international Conventions dealing with environmental issues, where it is no longer enough to show that there may not be a problem arising from the proposed actions, but that there will not be a problem. Data collected by the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency and the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries indicates that if high seas driftnet fishing for albacore continues in the region, the southern albacore stock will become depleted. With continued high seas driftnetting it will not be possible to sustain this stock, so crucial to national economies in the region. The scientific consensus in the South Pacific is that there are now such very clear pressures on these stocks that an immediate ban on driftnetting is warranted. The stocks would not be able to withstand fishing in the coming season at the levels experienced last year. On this basis, Greenpeace unequivocally favours L.30.