Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
MAY 2010
The International Programme on the State of the The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC) is
Ocean (IPSO) brings together world experts in the a coalition of over 60 organizations worldwide
science, socioeconomics and governance of marine promoting fisheries conservation and the
ecosystems to identify how humankind is changing protection of biodiversity on the high seas.
the capacity of the Global Ocean to support life and
human societies on Earth. The DSCC has been actively involved in the
international debate and negotiations
IPSO will use this knowledge to identify solutions concerning the adverse impacts on deep-sea
to restore the health of the Ocean, so as to sustain biodiversity in areas beyond national
environmental security and benefits for the present jurisdiction from bottom trawling and other
and future generations. The programme will methods of bottom fishing on the high seas
communicate its findings to the public, industry and since 2003/2004.
policymakers in order to impel the required changes in
human behaviour needed to achieve these solutions.
www.stateoftheocean.org www.savethehighseas.org
D Executive SUMMARY: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas
Summary
The Implementation of UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the
Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas
Executive SUMMARY: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas EXECUTIVE Summary: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas 1
Argos Georgia in Port impact assessments (e.g. SPRFMO). The impact prohibiting of bottom trawling (CCAMLR). Most
Stanley, the Falkland assessments undertaken also varied in their RFMOs have adopted spatial conservation
Islands. U.K. vessel scope. In some cases, Contracting Parties measures to protect VMEs, although the extent
involved in fishing for conducted full risk assessments that included and type of closures implemented by the
toothfish (Dissostichus details of fishing history, intended fishing RFMOs varied (e.g. NEAFC, NAFO, SEAFO, GFCM
spp.) in the Ross Sea, operations, gear to be used, a full definition and, most recently, CCAMLR). Some have not
2008/2009 of VMEs likely to be encountered, and a full closed all areas despite strong evidence of the
(© A.D. Rogers). ecological risk assessment in consultation with presence of VMEs (e.g. NEAFC) and some have
scientists, managers and industry to assess closed very few areas despite evidence of wide-
the potential impacts of the proposed fishing ranging destruction of VMEs by bottom fishing
operations. Other impact assessments lacked and potential ecological consequences, not only
sufficient information to assess the impacts of in terms of ecosystem function but also in terms
proposed fishing operations or were based on of loss of essential habitat for species targeted
incorrect assumptions about the presence or by fisheries (e.g. GFCM). In most cases,
lack of presence of VMEs. In addition, several closures have not been implemented because
RFMOs have not required impact assessments the lack of information on deep-sea ecosystems
for exploratory fisheries in new areas and/ has prevented RFMOs from identifying where
or existing fishing areas, despite the UNGA VMEs exist and scientific information on where
resolutions and FAO Guidelines (FAO, 2009a) some VME types (e.g. stony corals) are likely
A set of International Guidelines for the A comprehensive review of the extent to which that call for all deep-sea bottom fisheries to be to occur has not been used. There is also
Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High RFMOs and states have been implementing the assessed. evidence that some RFMOs have limited their
Seas (FAO Guidelines) were then negotiated relevant UNGA resolutions has not previously interpretation of which species can form VMEs
under the auspices of the United Nations Food been conducted. This report assesses the (e.g. only corals or sponges; NEAFC, NPFC) or
and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) to, inter measures and regulations adopted with regards Preventing impacts what structurally constitutes a VME (e.g. only
alia, further define and agree to criteria for to the four key actions in the 2006 UNGA on vulnerable marine areas where a very high density of individuals
the conduct of impact assessments of high Resolution 61/105 and reinforced by Resolution ecosystems on the seabed are recognised as VMEs; NPFC).
seas bottom fisheries; identify VMEs; and then 64/72 by the following RFMOs: North East RFMOs have undertaken a variety of measures In most cases, this likely reflects the use of
assess whether deep-sea fisheries would have Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC); to protect known or suspected VMEs within their the few example VMEs referred to in the UNGA
“significant adverse impacts” on VMEs. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Regulatory Areas. In some cases, technical resolutions and FAO Guidelines rather than
FAO Guidelines were adopted in August 2008. (NAFO); General Fisheries Commission for measures were adopted, such as the banning of being based on a scientific assessment of the
Key elements of the Guidelines are contained in the Mediterranean (GFCM); South East gillnets below a certain depth or from the entire full range of types of VMEs that may be found
Annex II of this report (FAO, 2009a). Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO); and region because of the high risk of by-catch and within a specific geographic area (FAO, 2009a).
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic ghost fishing (e.g. NEAFC, SEAFO, SPRFMO) or
In 2009, the UNGA determined that Resolution Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). The report
61/105 had not been implemented sufficiently. also reviews the interim measures adopted by
As a result the General Assembly adopted the states participating in the negotiation of
additional provisions in Resolution 64/72 the new North Pacific Fisheries Commission
(UNGA, 2009). This resolution reaffirmed the (NPFC), the South Pacific Regional Fisheries
2006 resolution and made it clear that the Management Organisation (SPRFMO), and in the
measures called for in Resolution 61/105 Southern Indian Ocean. The review covers the
should be implemented, consistent with the measures adopted both prior to and in response
FAO Guidelines, by flag states and RFMOs prior to the 2006 UNGA resolution. The key findings
to allowing, or authorising, bottom fishing on of the report include the following.
the high seas to proceed. Resolution 64/72
placed particular emphasis on conducting
impact assessments of bottom fisheries on the Conducting impact
high seas and called on states and RFMOs to assessments of individual
“ensure that vessels do not engage in bottom bottom fishing activities Mediterranean
fishing until such assessments have been The degree to which nations conducted impact roughy (Hoplostethus
carried out”. Resolution 64/72 further called for assessments varied widely. Despite the call mediterraneus), over coral
stock assessments and conservation measures from the UNGA for impact assessments for all garden habitat mainly
to ensure the long-term sustainability of deep- bottom fisheries in the high seas, some RFMOs comprising Acanthogorgia
sea fish stocks and non-target species, and have had no Contracting Parties conduct impact hirsuta, Faial Island,
the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks (UNGA, assessments (e.g. NEAFC, NAFO), while in other Azores, North Atlantic,
2009: Paras 119–120). Key paragraphs of both areas all Contracting Parties have submitted 350m depth (© A.D.
resolutions are contained in Annexes I and III of impact assessments (e.g. CCAMLR, NPFC), Rogers and Rebikoff
this report. or some Contracting Parties have conducted Foundation).
2 Executive SUMMARY: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas EXECUTIVE Summary: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas 3
Sustainably managing deep- become threatened with local extirpation or Encounter rules exclusion zone for the fishing vessel, could be
sea fish stocks extinction under IUCN Red List criteria. In many The requirement to establish rules to ensure as far as 10nm from the actual VME. It is also
For most of the target and by-catch species cases, little action has been taken to manage that fishing ceases when potential VMEs are questionable whether a 2nm move-on rule is
taken in deep-sea bottom fisheries on the by-catch species with a low productivity, although encountered is a complex area of the UNGA effective for passive fishing gears, such as long-
high seas, there is insufficient information on exceptions include skates, rays and grenadiers resolutions. Implementation of these rules lines, where the gear may be up to 20km long,
the biology, life history, fishing mortality and in Antarctica and the banning of gillnets by is particularly problematic for deep-water although a better idea of encounter position
geographic range of stocks of these species. several RFMOs, which are associated with high regions of the high seas where there are few can be attained by recording which VME species
This information is crucial for evaluating stock by-catch of species like sharks. For several data available on benthic ecosystems and the were caught on which segments of the gear and
status, sustainable harvest levels and biological of the RFMOs reviewed, there was evidence interactions between bottom fishing gear and then estimating the area of encounter on the
reference points for each population. In the from observer information and catch data VMEs. Encounter protocols have been generally seabed from the position of deployment. Several
absence of such data it is important that from scientific advisory bodies to RFMOs, of implemented as move-on rules, whereby, at a RFMOs (e.g. NEAFC, NAFO) also use move-on
the precautionary principle is applied in the significant levels of misreporting, under-reporting threshold weight of by-catch of VME-associated rules that differentiate between fished and non-
management of deep-sea fish stocks. Instead, or non-reporting of catch, particularly of by-catch species in a single trawl tow or set of static fished areas. This is inconsistent with Paragraph
the report found evidence that many deep-sea species, in the deep-sea fisheries. For the other fishing gear, a vessel moves away from the area 23 of the FAO Guidelines, which requires that
fish stocks were not subject to assessment RFMOs the extent of reporting of catches is and reports the encounter. In some cases, the deep-sea fisheries should be rigorously managed
or long-term management plans. Furthermore, unknown. Accurate reporting of catches of target diversity of VME-associated species is also throughout all stages of their development,
where specific management advice was and by-catch species is required to assess taken into account. including experimental, exploratory and
provided by scientists or scientific bodies (e.g. fishing mortality on populations and, without established phases.
the International Council for Exploration of the such data, formulation of management plans A number of significant problems with move-on
Sea [ICES]), total allowable catches (TACs) set that ensure sustainable levels of exploitation rules were identified in the present report. For The following table provides an overview
by RFMOs or states often exceeded advice, are extremely difficult. many RFMOs, move-on rules for VME encounters of actions taken, or not taken, by existing
even where there was a significant possibility apply to only a limited number of VME-related and incipient RFMOs in relation to the
of overfishing or collapse of a fish stock. The species, despite scientific evidence of and, key actions called for in the 2006 UNGA
high biodiversity of high seas fish communities most of these deep- sometimes, specific advice by scientific bodies Resolution 61/105 and reinforced by
means that by-catch in many high seas fisheries
forms a significant proportion of overall catch.
sea fisheries are not on the presence of, various types of VMEs within
RFMO Regulatory Areas. This has resulted from
Resolution 64/72.
4 Executive SUMMARY: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas EXECUTIVE Summary: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas 5
Deep-water species Deep-water species not managed TACs fall within Evidence of Closure of areas to Closures for Move-on rule Threshold Environmental
managed scientific misreporting protect VMEs other reasons impact
recommendations of catches assessments of
or catches fisheries
being
unreported
Coral (kg) Sponge (kg)
NEAFC Hoplostethus atlanticus; Alepocephalus bairdii; A. rostratus; Argentina No. Examples: Yes NEAFC Yes >10 Yes Yes 60 800 No
Micromesistius poutassou; silus; Beryx spp.; Brosme brosme; Chaceon Hoplostethus
Sebastes mentella affinis; Chimaera monstrosa; Coryphaenoides atlanticus; Sebastes
rupestris; Epigonus telescopes; Helicolenus mentella
dactylopterus; Hydrolagus spp.; Lepidopus
caudatus; Macrourus berglax; Molva molva;
Phycis blennoides; Polyprion americanus;
sharks 2
NAFO Pandalus spp.; Penaeus Anarhichas lupus; Anarhichas minor; Anarhichas No. Examples: Yes NAFO Yes >10 No Yes 60 800 No
spp.; Rajidae; Reinhardtius denticulatus; Antimora rostrata; Chimaeridae; Sebastes spp. and
hippoglossoides; Sebastes Coryphaenoides rupestris; Macrourus berglax; skates
spp.; Urophycis tenuis sharks
GFCM Aristeus antennatus; Sharks; others not known Not identified in Unknown GFCM Yes No No N/A N/A No
Merluccius merluccius; current report <5 but fishing banned
Nephrops norvegicus; below 1000m depth
Parapenaeus longirostris
SEAFO Beryx spp.*; Chaceon Not Known Unknown Unknown SEAFO Yes >10 No Yes 60 800 No
spp.*; Dissostichus
eleginoides*;
Hoplostethus atlanticus*;
Pseudopentaceros
richardsoni*; sharks*
NPFC None Allocyttus verrucosus; Beryx decadactylus; Beryx No. Example: Beryx Yes NPFC No Yes. (Spatial Yes 50 N/A Yes
splendens; Chaceon spp.; Chioniocetes tanneri; splendens measures for
Corallium spp.; Coryphaenoides spp.; Epigonus alfonsino)
denticulatus; Erilepis zonifera; Helicolenus spp.,
Lepidocybium flavobrunneum; Paralomis spp.;
Physiculus spp.; Pseudopentaceros wheeleri;
sharks; Zenopsis nebulosa; and many other
species
SPRFMO None Allocyttus niger; Allocyttus verrucosus; Beryx Not identified in Unknown SPRFMO No, but note that New No Yes 30 (New 50 (New Yes
spp.; Caprodon longimanus; Centroberyx current report Zealand has closed Zealand) Zealand)
affinis; Dissostichus eleginoides; Epigonus areas to its vessels 100 (Spain) 1000 (Spain)
spp.; ; Etelis carbunculus; Etelis coruscans;
Helicolenus spp.; Hoplostethus atlanticus;
Jasus spp.; Macrouridae; Micromesistius
australis; Mora moro; Nemadactylus spp.;
Neocyttus rhomboidalis; Paristiopterus labiosus;
Pentaceros richardsoni; Pentaceros japonica
Polyprion oxygeneios, Polyprion americanus;
Pseudocyttus maculatus;Rexea spp.; Seriola
lalandi; sharks
CCAMLR Champsocephalus gunnari; Antimora rostrata and other species Yes No CCAMLR Yes Yes Yes 10 10 Yes
Dissostichus eleginoides;
Dissostichus mawsoni;
Macrouridae; Rajiformes
2 Note that many of these species are listed as “regulated” by NEAFC but are only covered by general measures to reduce effort on deep-sea fisheries (NEAFC, 2010a). These
measures have not been effective at reducing catches of deep-sea species collectively and do not represent effective management of individual species (see main report).
6 Executive SUMMARY: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas EXECUTIVE Summary: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas 7
Recommendations To establish and implement protocols species should be assessed to determine
The following are a set of recommendations for improving the to cease fishing where an encounter whether there are SAIs on population viability.
with VMEs occurs during fishing Where such impacts take place, management
implementation of UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 by RFMOs and
activities, and to report such measures should be applied to ensure the
flag states, including in regions where RFMOs are under negotiation or encounters so that appropriate long-term sustainability of populations of non-
have not yet been established. These are organised to reflect the four key measures can be adopted with target species.
requirements of the resolutions. respect to that site • Scientific recommendations on annual
• The trigger thresholds for encounter rules catches and other measures to ensure the
should be based on rigorous scientific sustainability of target and by-catch species
Conduct assessments of whether will not produce SAIs on VMEs, fishing analyses of relationships between by- should be adopted by RFMOs and states
bottom fishing activities have should be prohibited, particularly in respect catch and the presence of VMEs within the unless a clear case can be made that the
significant adverse impacts on VMEs of bottom trawl fisheries, in accordance geographic region in which bottom fishing information on which such decisions were
• A standard for assessments of deep-sea with the precautionary approach, especially activites take place. Such analyses can be based is inaccurate. This is likely to occur
bottom fisheries on the high seas should where knowledge of deep-sea ecosystems is undertaken on fisheries-independent catch when new information becomes available.
be developed with participation of fisheries deficient. data or on fisheries data in combination In situations where there is a dispute
managers, the industry and scientists. • All areas where VMEs are known or likely with scientific surveys or other information. over scientific information or advice, the
Examples of comprehensive assessments to occur should be closed to bottom Thresholds should be specific to particular precautionary approach should be adopted
exist (e.g. New Zealand assessments for fishing with immediate effect, unless or groups or size-classes of organisms and to the when making management recommendations
CCAMLR and SPRFMO) and can be built upon. until an assessment has determined that fishing gear and methods used. for a stock.
• Part of any assessment should include management measures for fisheries in these • Evidence of by-catches of VME indicator • High seas fisheries taking low-productivity
consideration of which VMEs are present areas would not result in SAIs to VMEs. species at levels indicated by scientists to species (either as targeted catch or as by-
within the geographic region in which fishing • States should implement measures sufficient represent a likely encounter with a VME should catch), where the long-term sustainability of
activities occur or will occur, in accordance to protect VMEs, even where an RFMO fails to trigger an immediate (and at least temporary) the target species or viability of populations
with the FAO Guidelines. These should include adopt sufficient measures, e.g. if the decision- cessation of fishing and closure of the area of non-target species cannot be ensured
fragile habitats with a low resilience to fishing making structure of an RFMO has allowed until an assessment of the area has been through management plans based on sound
impacts and biologically significant areas, one or more Contracting Parties to block the conducted and a determination has been scientific assessment of the state of stocks or
such as spawning grounds and threatened adoption of measures necessary to effectively made as to whether fishing can be resumed in populations, should be closed. Such fisheries
or endangered species. Such data are often implement UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and the area without SAIs on VMEs. should remain closed until management
unavailable for deep-sea ecosystems so this 64/72, the other Contracting Parties should • Move-on rules should ensure that subsequent plans are in place and can ensure, with a
may require investment in new research and/ nonetheless establish measures to regulate to an encounter there is no risk of SAIs high degree of confidence and taking into
or synthesis of existing data. their high seas fleets to ensure the full occurring on identified VMEs as a result of account any uncertainties with regard to data
• States whose vessels engage in bottom and effective implementation of the UNGA continuing fishing activities. Move-on distances or other information, that such fisheries are
fisheries on the high seas should perform resolutions. should reflect the accuracy with which the sustainable and consistent with ecosystem-
impact assessments consistent with • The widespread deep-sea bottom fisheries location of a VME has been identified. based and precautionary approaches.
the criteria agreed in the FAO Guidelines on the high seas in the 1960s to 1990s • All deep-sea bottom fisheries operating on the
(paragraphs 47, 42, 17–20) as a precondition have impacted on a large area of the seabed high seas should ensure that data on catches,
to further authorising bottom fishing in areas likely to be suitable for the occurrence of To implement measures in utilised by-catch and discards are collected
that have been historically fished as well as VMEs. The species diversity of many such accordance with the precautionary accurately and to the species level. Where
those where exploratory fishing activities are ecosystems is unknown, as is the capacity for approach, ecosystems approaches there are issues of species identification
proposed. recovery. Where there is a history of bottom and international law, and to then by-catch should be retained for expert
fishing on the high seas then, at a minimum, sustainably manage deep-sea fish identification on land or observers with the
states and RFMOs should establish closures stocks expertise to accurately evaluate catch should
To ensure that if fishing activities of representative sites in historically fished • The fish stocks targeted by deep-sea bottom be carried.
have significant adverse impacts areas where VMEs are likely to have previously fisheries should be subject to scientific • Where misreporting is suspected, systems
they are managed to prevent such occurred, to allow for recovery or regeneration assessment of status at a minimum of every that ensure correct reporting of catches
impacts, including through closing of degraded areas. five years or more frequently where scientists should be implemented.
areas to bottom fishing where VMEs • All closures of areas of seabed to bottom and managers consider it appropriate. • In regions where there are few data,
are known or likely to occur, or they fishing should be considered within the Based on such assessments, TACs should collaborative programmes between managers,
are not authorised to proceed framework of a network of protected areas, be determined that ensure long-term scientists and industry should be established
• Where impact assessments cannot make with clear objectives in terms of conservation sustainability. to help with identification of catch and by-catch
a clear determination that bottom fishing and/or fisheries management. • The impact of fishing mortality on by-catch species.
8 Executive SUMMARY: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas EXECUTIVE Summary: The Implementation of UN Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas 9