TL: THE GLOBAL FISHERIES CRISIS AND THE UN FISHERIES CONF
SO: Greenpeace International (GP)
DT: March 20, 1995
Keywords: environment fisheries oceans un conferences /

Turbot -- A Front Line in the Global Wars Over Declining Fish    

                The Global Fisheries Crisis
           and the United Nations Fisheries Conference
 
The recent arrest of a Spanish trawler by the Canadian Fisheries 
Department in the turbot fishery off Canada is just the latest in

a long line of clashes at sea around the world, where nations and

fishers fight for access to dwindling fish stocks. Poor fisheries

management the world over has led to depletion of fish stocks one

after another.  
 
What must end now in order to restore fish stocks and peace in 
fisheries is the business as usual attitude of parties that opt 
for unilateral actions and aggressive efforts to block legally 
binding measures to conserve fish stocks.  
 
Governments charged with turning around the global fisheries 
crisis will convene again at the United Nations in New York on 
March 27 to address fisheries management of fish stocks like the 
turbot, which "straddle" national Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)

and international waters, as well as highly migratory fish 
stocks.  
 
It is crucial that the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks 
and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks result in a strong, legally 
binding treaty when it concludes in July.  Aggressive measures 
such as those taking place over turbot threaten the fish stocks 
and marine life and the successful conclusion of these critical 
negotiations.
 
The European Union (EU): 
 
Despite wide international agreement to a legally binding treaty
to conserve fish stocks in international waters and Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZs) at the  United Nations Conference, the EU,
mainly because of Spanish and French pressure, remains opposed to
such responsible movement.  The EU is resisting progress on
critical points including the  need for a binding treaty and a
strong Precautionary Approach to  fisheries management.
 
The EU claims that a legally binding treaty would take too long 
to conclude and bring into effect. Instead, the EU and its main 
fishing countries, are supporting the weakest possible option for

achieving conservation for declining fish stocks, the FAO Code of

Conduct for Responsible Fishing.  This code is voluntary rather 
than legally binding and is taking longer to negotiate even than 
the UN draft treaty on fisheries. 
 
The EU, mainly under the pressure of Spain, is also resisting the

adoption of the Precautionary Principle as the underlying 
principle of fisheries management, when its own legislation (the 
Maastricht Treaty) demands that the Precautionary Principle be 
implemented in environmental protection as well as through other 
EU policies such as the fisheries policy.
 
On the other hand, the EU strongly argues that conservation and 
management measures must be applied according to the biological 
unity of fish stocks -- meaning across the whole range of the 
stock inside and outside the high seas and national EEZs, and 
that there should not be double standards.
 
This is a good concept if applied consistently, based on the 
strictest management and conservation measures. But the practices

of Spain and Portugal in the North West Atlantic turbot fishery, 
in which their fleets fish far beyond the quota allocated by the 
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), exemplify the 
EU's way to apply the principle of biological unity. 
 
The EU's interpretation does not seem to mean the application of 
strict conservation measures across the whole range of fish 
stocks but actually the application of their singular rights to 
destroy the fish stocks through unilateral overfishing and the 
implementation of the lowest conservation measures. 
 
The EU also seems to be using this concept in order to prolong 
polarisation of the battle between coastal states and states that

fish on the high seas.
 
In summary, the EU is using stall tactics to block the adoption 
and implementation of strict conservation and management of 
jeopardized marine resources. These tactics in international 
arenas coupled with their unilateral actions at sea only deepen 
the global fisheries crisis.
 
The EU is constantly avoiding the reforms necessary to turn 
around the fisheries crisis, and is trying to maintain a status 
quo which has driven fish stocks and fishing communities to 
disaster. 
 
Canada: 
 
Canada, as well, has some sea to cover before it can be 
considered internationally responsible.  Recent acknowledgements 
by Canada of their complicity in the collapse of the Cod stocks 
is a welcome change of attitude.  But Canada has not agreed in 
the draft treaty to adopt strict conservation and management 
measures inside their Exclusive Economic Zone that are consistent

with those they demand of high seas fishing states.  
 
Instead, Canada has joined attempts to weaken the obligations in 
the draft treaty of coastal states to conserve fish in their 
Exclusive Economic Zones.  Today, Canada and other coastal 
fishing states are only obligated to apply three Articles -- 5,6
and 7 -- of the 47 Articles and three annexes contained in the
draft  treaty.  (*  See note below)    
 
Their refusal to push for strengthened conservation and 
management measures in their own waters coupled with their 
unilateral enforcement actions against fishing on the high seas 
is counterproductive.  Should Canada continue this course, it 
could appear Canada is only interested in extending her economic 
reach across the ocean rather than protecting and conserving the 
declining fish stocks and jeopardized ecosystems in the region.  

     
 
                        ****************
 
In both cases, opting for unilateral actions rather than 
accepting to work multilaterally to conserve the fish stocks and 
adopt strict conservation and management is only exacerbating 
this crisis for the fish and for the fishermen and might 
jeopardize the successful conclusion of the United Nations 
Fisheries Conference.
 
Concerning the conflict in the turbot fishery, Greenpeace demands

that:
 
* an immediate moratorium be imposed on all parties fishing for  

turbot until this crisis is resolved in a way which will       
ensure the conservation and indeed the recovery of the turbot   
stock;   
 
* that NAFO regulations be strictly binding and that no          
objections (opting out) be allowed.
 
Measures and obligations that Greenpeace is urging the UN 
Fisheries Conference to adopt at the international level as well 
as through regional organisations and implement throughout fish 
stocks' migratory range must ensure, at a minimum:
 
* a precautionary and ecosystem approach to fisheries            
management including:
 
     - stringent conservation and management standards applied   

       throughout the range of the stocks;
    
     - a rapid phase-out of non-selective fishing gear and other 

       destructive practices, thereby resulting in major 
       reductions in bycatch, waste, discards, and damage to     

       marine habitat;     
     
     - the obligation to protect the marine environment from the 

       adverse impacts of non-fishing activities (e.g., marine   

       pollution, habitat degradation) as integral to fisheries  

       conservation;     
     
     - commitments by coastal states and distant water states,   

       via "coherence, compatibility" or "consistency"           

       provisions to adopt and implement strengthened            

       conservation standards both within the EEZs and on the    

       high seas;     
 
* significant reductions in fishing capacity;     
 
* respect for the rights and special interests of small-         
scale, artisanal, indigenous and women fishworkers and         
communities traditionally and culturally dependent on          
fisheries for food and livelihood;
 
* effective mechanisms for the monitoring, control and           
surveillance of distant water fleets and vessels fishing on the
high seas;
 
* effective mechanisms for transparency and public      
participation in fisheries decision-making process. 
                     --------------
 
* Note -- The draft treaty text is titled "Draft 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 (A/Conf.164/22)"  
 
Within the draft treaty there are only three Articles that apply
directly  to fishing within the EEZs of coastal States such as
Canada.  These are  Article 5 "General Principles", Article 6
"The Application of the Precautionary Approach" and  Article 7
"Compatibility of Conservation and Management Measures". 
However, the application, within EEZs, of the general principles
for fisheries conservation contained in Article 5 is qualified
(in Article 3) by the term "mutatis mutandis".  In principle this
would mean that coastal States would be free to apply or ignore
the provisions of Article 5 as they please.  Other Articles only
apply to the extent that coastal States have a duty to cooperate
with States fishing on the high seas.
 

----------
                                Green2 1