Marine Biodiversity Protection through Fisheries Management ‐ International Legal Developments

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9388.00212
• Date: 01 November 1999
• Author: Gregory Rose
• Published date: 01 November 1999

Marine Biodiversity Protection Volume 8 Issue 3 1999

Marine Biodiversity

Protection through

Fisheries Management

– International Legal

Developments

Gregory Rose

Fishing Impacts on

Biodiversity

The impacts of f‌ishing activities on marine biodiversity

are dire. Contemporary commercial f‌ishing practice

results in by-catches of 18–40 million tonnes of

unwanted f‌ish, sea birds, sea turtles, marine mammals

and other marine life. These species are usually dis-

carded at sea and amount to about one third of the total

weight of global commercial catch retained.

1

In addition

to discards, some f‌ishing technologies, such as bottom

trawls and dynamiting, impact on marine biodiversity

through major disturbance of habitat.

Commercial f‌ish stocks and other forms of marine biodi-

versity are a biological unity. Traditionally, however,

each has been treated through separate regulatory

frameworks. For convenience of discussion, the distinc-

tion is made here to facilitate analysis of their interac-

tion as bodies of international law. This article explores

the emerging interaction as international legal mech-

anisms come to recognize that unity, and develop to pro-

tect marine diversity from the unintended impacts of

commercial f‌ishing.

Management Framework –

Law of the Sea Convention

The 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) con-

tains loose provisions for the protection of marine biodi-

versity. Those parts of the UNCLOS which deal with f‌ish-

ing activities in the exclusive economic zone and high

seas (Parts V and VII) are primarily concerned with the

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

284

management of f‌ish stocks at maximum sustainable yield

for the purpose of f‌ishing.

Within that basic framework are provisions for conser-

vation of other parts of marine biodiversity, set out in

Articles 61.4 and 119.1(b). Respectively, these provide

that, in taking management measures, such as determin-

ing the maximum allowable catch for harvested stocks

at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable

yield in the exclusive economic zone, or determining the

allowable catch on the high seas, States shall

%take into consideration the effects on species associated with

or dependent upon harvested species with a view to maintaining

of restoring populations of such associated or dependent species

above levels at which their reproduction may become seri-

ously threatened.

This commitment is mandatory but minimalist. It

requires only the consideration of effects on marine

biodiversity, no more. Even then, the objective is not

onerous, being merely to avoid a serious survival threat,

the science of which would in most cases be diff‌icult

to establish.

In the context of obligations to prevent, reduce or con-

trol marine pollution in Part XII of UNCLOS, the duty to

protect marine biodiversity is implied from the require-

ment that:

The measures taken in accordance with this Part shall include

those necessary to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosys-

tems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endang-

ered species and other forms of marine life (Article 194.4).

However, this loose requirement is merely to exercise

best endeavours, when read in the context that

States shall take %all measures consistent with the Convention

that are necessary %using for this purpose the best practicable

means at their disposal and in accordance with their capabilities,