Aj Press

Adapting to regional enforcement: fishing down the governance index.

Background Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing is a problem for marine resource managers, leading to depletion of fish stocks and negative impacts on marine ecosystems. These problems are particularly evident in regions with weak governance. Countries responsible for sustainable natural resource management in the Southern Ocean have actively worked to reduce IUU fishing in the region over a period of 15 years, leading to a sequence of three distinct peaks of IUU fishing. Methodology/Principal Findings We reviewed existing public records relating to IUU fishing in the Southern Ocean between 1995–2009 and related this information to the governance capacity of flag states responsible for IUU vessels. IUU operators used a number of methods to adapt to enforcement actions, resulting in reduced risks of detection, apprehension and sanctioning. They changed fishing locations, vessel names and flag states, and ports for offloading IUU catches. There was a significant decrease in the proportion of IUU vessels flagged to CCAMLR countries, and a significant decrease in the average governance index of flag states. Despite a decreasing trend of IUU fishing, further actions are hampered by the regional scope of CCAMLR and the governance capacity of responsible states. Conclusions/Significance This is the first study of long-term change in the modus operandi of IUU fishing operators, illustrating that IUU operators can adapt to enforcement actions and that such dynamics may lead to new problems elsewhere, where countries have a limited capacity. This outsourcing of problems may have similarities to natural resource extraction in other sectors and in other regions. IUU fishing is the result of a number of factors, and effectively addressing this major challenge to sustainable marine resource extraction will likely require a stronger focus on governance. Highly mobile resource extractors with substantial funds are able to adapt to changing regulations by exploiting countries and regions with limited capacity.

Antarctic Treaty System Ready for a Challenge

In their Policy Forum “Challenges to the future conservation of the Antarctic” (13 July, p. [158][1]), S. L. Chown et al. discuss concerns about the Antarctic Treaty Systems (ATSs) ability to navigate future challenges. We believe ATS has demonstrated that it is both robust and adaptable.nn![Figure][2] nnUnited. nTreaty nation flags fly over the South Pole.nnCREDIT: PETTY OFFICER 2ND CLASS JOHN K. SOKOLOWSKI/U.S. NAVYnnChown et al. raise the issue of marine resource harvesting, biological prospecting, and potential mineral and hydrocarbon exploitation. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) regulates the harvesting of marine resources in the Southern Ocean, and it has arguably the most highly developed system for ecosystem-based management of any international agreement ([ 1 ][3]). Underpinning CCAMLRs decision-making processes is the precautionary approach which, as it has evolved, has set very conservative catch limits on fish stocks and provided other mechanisms for reducing harvesting impacts. The Southern Ocean krill fishery is arguably the largest underexploited fishery in the world. For many years, CCAMLR has been developing mechanisms in advance of projected escalation of interest in the fishery, including setting precautionary catch limits, establishing small-scale management areas, and invoking trigger points where, when a predesignated catch is exceeded, additional conservation measures will apply.nnIn their discussion of the submissions of several Antarctic claimant states to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), Chown et al. have misconstrued both the actions of those Antarctic Treaty Parties and the effects of those actions. All Antarctic Treaty Parties are bound by the Antarctic mining ban ([ 2 ][4]). Submission of data to the CLCS in relation to Antarctic or other continental shelves has no bearing on that ban or a partys obligation to uphold it. Mitigating unacceptable human impacts in Antarctica is a substantial focus for the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, as Chown et al. note. There is no evidence that human interest in Antarctica will outpace the capacity of the ATS to respond.nnThe historically steady climb in Antarctic tourism numbers from the 1990s has been reversed since the 2008 financial crisis ([ 3 ][5]) and also since the International Maritime Organization introduced a ban on the use and carriage of heavy and intermediate fuel into the Antarctic Treaty Area in 2011 ([ 4 ][6]). Tourism is subject to ongoing monitoring, oversight, and management, mainly through the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO)—an organization mindful of the extraordinary responsibilities it carries for maintaining the integrity of the pristine Antarctic environment. Local impact is minimized by a system of site guidelines and rules about behavior ashore—the latter originally adopted by IAATO in its by-laws and later formalized by the ATS.nnThe Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have addressed past challenges firmly and overtly within the Antarctic Treatys twin pillars of peace and science ([ 5 ][7]). Reforms to the operation of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, increased opportunities for engagement with relevant international organizations, and the presence of nongovernmental organizations as observers to ATS meetings and as members of national delegations since the mid-1980s all work to strengthen the institutional resilience of the ATS. The number of parties acceding to instruments of the Antarctic Treaty System has steadily increased (including, notably, Malaysia and Pakistan in 2011). At the same time, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have increased engagement with relevant international organizations: among them, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization regarding IUU fishing; the International Hydrographic Office in relation to charting Antarctic waters; and the International Maritime Organization in the development of the Polar Shipping Code. We concur that the challenges facing the region defy complacency. The quickening pace of global change requires scientists and policymakers to work together. With this as a fundamental underpinning for future action, we believe the ATS is well placed to meet these challenges.nn1. [↵][8] 1. A. Constablen , Fish Fisheries 12, 138 (2011).n [OpenUrl][9][CrossRef][10][Web of Science][11]nn2. [↵][12] Article 7, Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, Antarctic Treaty Secretariat ([www.ats.aq/e/ep.htm][13]).n nn3. [↵][14] International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, Tourism Statistics ( ).n nn4. [↵][15] Annex I, Chapter 9, “Special requirements for the use or carriage of oils in the Antarctic area,” International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (International Maritime Organization Resolution MEPC.189(60), 26 March 2010). n5. [↵][16] Articles I and III of the Antarctic Treaty, Antarctic Treaty Secretariat ([www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf][17]).nn [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1222821n [2]: pending:yesn [3]: #ref-1n [4]: #ref-2n [5]: #ref-3n [6]: #ref-4n [7]: #ref-5n [8]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in textn [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DFish%2BFisheries%26rft.volume%253D12%26rft.spage%253D138%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1111%252Fj.1467-2979.2011.00410.x%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actxn [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00410.x&link_type=DOIn [11]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000290540700003&link_type=ISIn [12]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in textn [13]: http://www.ats.aq/e/ep.htmn [14]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in textn [15]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in textn [16]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5 in textn [17]: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf

Science in the Court! The Role of Science in ‘Whaling in the Antarctic’

This paper deals with the way science featured in the case Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening). ‘Science’ was invoked by both Australia and Japan (and by New Zealand). The activities carried out under JARPA II and JARPA were portrayed as ‘unscientific’ by Australia and as ‘science’ by Japan. Scientists, as expert witnesses, were called upon to give written and oral evidence (two by Australia and one by Japan) and they were cross-examined in Court, and were questioned by the bench. Australia presented two Expert Witnesses to discuss science, Dr Nick Gales, Chief Scientist of the Australian Antarctic Program, and Professor Marc Mangel of the University of California, Santa Cruz. Japan presented one Expert Witness, Professor Lars Walloe from the University of Oslo.

Foreword: polar oceans governance - an Antarctic perspective

When I was asked to write a foreword to this book, I was sitting in The nHague observing the case Australia had brought against Japan over nwhaling in the Antarctic. The case has pitched two competing world nviews on sustainable utilization of the marine environment; on protection nof species; on science and its role in ocean management; and on, of ncourse, the operation of international agreements and the interpretation nof applicable law. Being asked to write this foreword gave me reason to npause and consider what it is about Antarctica and its Southern Ocean nthat sets it apart from the rest of the world, including the Arctic.