OCEANS GOVERNANCE AND THE WCPO TUNA FISHERIES   

By Les Clark

Introduction

The Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and WCPO Ocean Governance as an outcome of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement

Advances

Shortfalls and Reform Needs1. A broader ocean governance framework

2. Rebalancing RFMO participation

Recall the Background

UNCLOS left unfinished business with respect to high seas fishing

Led to UNCED calling for a solution to problem of overfishing in the high seas

And to The UN Fish Stocks Agreement in 1995– Strengthening RFMOs, especially regarding high seas

monitoring and compliance– Updating fishery management principles– Oversight of the exercise of flag state control

WCPO Advances

A new WCPFC CommissionEmerging high seas compliance and enforcement regime -

Straight out of the UN Fish Stocks agreement Initial though still inadequate set of measures capping catch

or effort in all the major fisheries, and mitigating impacts on vulnerable bycatch consistent with JPOI targets

High quality data and science programme

Measures largely based on extending and leveraging coastal state (largely Pacific Island) in-zone measures to the high seas (not that these states are perfect)

And often in spite of the efforts of high seas fishing states

Substantial shortfalls

Gaps, lags and shortfalls in high seas monitoring, compliance & enforcement (e.g. VMS, observers, data provision and sharing)

Lack of linkages and broader understanding (e.g. science and high seas monitoring)

Responses - Now

Heightening market consciousnessBroader awareness raisingIncreasing understandingDirect action – Greenpeace styleExternal RFMO reviewDeveloping Country Capacity Building

Long Term Reform Needs

Nesting oceanic fisheries management within a broader framework of ocean governance– E.g. the Benguela Current commission– UNEP Regional Seas/SPREP/PI Regional Oceans

Policy

Strengthened role for the global community in high seas custodianship, including participation in RFMOs

THANK YOUwww.ffa.int/gef