Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 235
16.
Pane} Discussion on Living Resources
The panel consisted of Peter D. Oelofsen (moderator),
Alexandre Kiss, James Barnes, and Yoon Kyung Oh.
SUMMARY
Mr. Gulland's presentation on the management of Antarctic
marine living resources provided concrete examples of two
subjects raised in Chapters 13 and 14 on the environmental
management of Antarctica:
(1) That a type of continent-wide approach, as
suggested by Heap and Holdgate, is already being
initiated with respect to marine living resources
management based on the ecosystem standard adopted in
the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources (CCAMLR); and
(2) That the Convention for the Conservation of
Antarctic Seals and CCAMLR illustrate the preventive
approach toward conservation, attempting to foresee
and address problems that might arise once commercial
exploitation of these species develops.
It also pointed out how the contracting parties to the
CCAMLR have sought to avoid mistakes made by the Inter-
national Whaling Commission (IWC). First, they are
attempting to acquire the knowledge necessary to estab-
lish a solid foundation for management decisions before
over exploitation occurs. Second, to get away from the
IWC problem of a fluctuating balance between proexploita-
tion and proconservation members, CCAMLR operates
according to consensus decision-making procedures.
seeking agreed objectives for conservation measures.
In general discussion, the CCAMLR received strong
support both as an effective mechanism for the conserva-
tion of Antarctic marine living resources and, on
political grounds, because it has dealt effectively.with
235
OCR for page 236
236
opposing positions on national claims. Some participants
cautioned against distancing fishery management objectives
under the CCAMLR from the political priorities of the
Antarctic Treaty System (ATS).
As a resource management regime, it was noted that the
continent-wide approach would have to be capable of
coping flexibly with local and regional exploitation
pressures. Questions raised by the panelists and the
audience focused primarily on the implementation of the
CCAMLR, still in its early stages. Various suggestions
were put forward to help guarantee that its objectives
were fully achieved. These addressed the following
points:
(1) Progress in adopting conservation measures and
acquiring the data required to underpin them,
including the possibility of allowing the krill
fishery to develop as an experimental fishery and the
role of SCAR's Biological Investigations of Marine
Antarctic Systems and Stocks (BIOMASS) program;
(2) A strategy for monitoring living resources;
(3) The establishment of a CCAMLR inspection system;
(4) Policies with respect to international organiza-
tion observers;
(5) Measures to avoid adverse effects of marine
debris on living species; and
(6) The possibility of creating whale habitat
sanctuaries.
REMAREtS BY ALEXANDRE KISS
On the whole, KISS was optimistic that the ATS has and
will develop legal regimes adequate to protect Antarctic
ecosystems for the benefit of the whole of mankind. He
endorsed the continent-wide approach of the ATS, stressing
the need to treat issues as part of one interrelated
system.
Nevertheless, Kiss called attention to a certain
paradox, as he saw it, between developments under the
Antarctic Treaty and those under CCAMLR. Despite the
fact that the Antarctic Treaty contained a fairly narrow
basis for drafting regulations to protect the environment
[Article IX(l)(f)], the consultative parties have turned
their attention to this subject beginning at their first
meeting. CCAMLR, on the other hand, provided a detailed
mandate for enactment of conservation regulations; yet
OCR for page 237
237
three meetings have produced fairly limited results. The
first meeting dealt with important administrative rules,
but it was not until the third meeting, in September
1984, that the first two conservation measures were
adopted. These covered minimum mesh size regulations for
nets throughout the convention area and a prohibition on
fishing other than for scientific research purposes in
waters within 12 nautical miles of South Georgia.
Kiss reported that a third proposal to limit fish size
did not obtain consensus and that no practical measures
had yet been adopted on how to avoid entanglement of
marine mammals, birds, and other nontarget species in
marine debris, such as lost or discarded fishing gear.
This problem, along with monitoring, will be considered
at the fourth CCAMLR meeting, in September 1985. More-
over, few steps have been taken toward implementing the
inspection procedures provided for in Articles IX(l)(g)
and XXIV of the CCAMLR. In Kiss' view, these achieve-
ments fall short of the far-reaching aims of the CCAMLR.
On the subject of data requirements, Kiss was critical
of the fact that the CCAMLR scientists have to rely to
some extent on data provided by the commercial fishermen.
He believed that states have an important responsibility
to collect and transmit scientific data to the commission
because these data are indispensable for the preparation
of regulations.
Kiss warned against the danger of consensus decision-
making procedures, which could allow a minority of voting
members to paralyze the decision-making mechanism, but he
noted that the caution and thorough discussion required
to obtain consensus also favor sound agreement. At the
same time, he expressed confidence that the CCAMLR
Scientific Committee, composed of scientific experts,
will help the commission to accomplish its tasks.
REMARKS BY JAMES BARNES
Barnes agreed that the CCAMER was a potentially valuable
instrument, but he identified potential problems with it
as well. He, too, was afraid that consensus decision-
making procedures could allow fishing states that are
members of the commission to block measures that
restricted their fishing. In his view, this is already a
problem in the Southern Ocean finfishery. He also
wondered whether the commission would exercise the will
to set national quotas. Although national quotas are not
OCR for page 238
238
actually listed among the types of measures that may be
adopted by the commission, it was his understanding that
the commission could adopt them if it wished.
With respect to the inadequacy of data available for
rational decision making under the CCAMLR, Barnes believed
that more baseline data, as well as a better understanding
of the dynamics of the marine ecosystem, are needed. He
reminded the group that a number of nongovernmental
organizations have proposed that the Southern Ocean
fishery be managed as a giant scientific experiment, with
various closed areas, closed seasons, and use of the
n indicator species" concept. He advocated more substan-
tial international support for the BIOMASS program as
another approach to helping to meet data needs.
Barnes shared Kiss' regret that the inspection system
called for in CCAMLR has not received much attention to
date in commission meetings.
On the subject of observer participation, he noted
that the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition had
requested observer status under CCAMLR in 1978. He
stressed that conservation organizations wish to be
involved in CCAMLR meetings, in keeping with normal
international organization practice, in which represen-
tatives from conservation groups may express views and
circulate documents. In his opinion, policies with
respect to observers will be important in helping to gain
widespread acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the ATS.
Finally, regarding whale habitat sanctuaries, Barnes
noted that several species of whale are at one and five
percent of their historical stock sizes and that Article
II(2)(b) of the CCAMLR calls for measures to rebuild
depleted stocks. He advocated giving attention to
creating "marine protected areas" in order to preserve
the feeding grounds of the great whales, and he was
pleased that SCAR, at the thirteenth biennial meeting of
the Antarctic Treaty consultative parties in October
1985, will recommend approval of marine protected areas,
even if none of these is a habitat sanctuary. (Chapters
13 and 14.)
REMARKS BY YOON KYUNG OH
Oh expressed the Republic of Korea's support for the
contributions of the ATS in facilitating cooperation in
many fields of science among the countries active in
Antarctica. He acknowledged the system's role in
OCR for page 239
239
establishing a zone of peace, prohibiting military
activities, protecting the pristine environment, and
conserving living resources in the area. He said that
the Korean government has sent ships to Antarctica four
times since 1978 to conduct fishing activities and
oceanographic surveys and that it plans to continue its
surveys in the years ahead. He added that reports on
these activities have been distributed to the parties to
the Antarctic Treaty and to relevant international
organizations.
Oh noted his country's willingness to accede to the
CCAMLR and to work together with the contracting parties
to the Antarctic Treaty in promoting international
understanding and peaceful use of the Antarctic con-
tinent. He urged that the ATS be open to all new
participants without reservation. (The Republic of
Korea, which is not a member of the U.N., is in the
anomalous position of requiring the consent of the
consultative parties to accede to the 1959 Antarctic
Treaty. See the discussions in Chapters 7 and 27.)
DISCUSSION
The discussion on progress toward adopting specific
conservation measures for marine living resources turned
on the two points made by Gulland in his presentation:
the need for agreement among those concerned on the
objectives of such measures and the adequacy of scien-
tific and technical data on which to base them.
There was general agreement that the process of
formulating objectives and methods is an ongoing one that
is important with respect to information requirements as
well as to specific conservation regulations. The second
and third meetings of the CCAMLR commission and scientific
committee had concentrated on how to establish data
reporting and analysis systems.
_ The scientific committee
had agreed that these topics deserved highest priority
and that the formulation of objectives in this area would
be extremely important, because effective implementation
of the CCAMLR depends on capabilities to detect trends,
changes, and potential changes in species populations and
the surrounding environment.
Debate over CCAMLR accomplishments to date and future
prospects took note of the fact that the CCAMLR institu-
tions had adopted some conservation measures at their
September 1984 meeting, as noted by Kiss, and that the
OCR for page 240
240
scientific committee, taking note of the assessment of
fish stocks in the South Atlantic had agreed to recommend
that states desist from directed fishing for a specific
fish species (Notothenia rossii) in the entire convention
_
area. On the other hand, lack of adequate data had pre-
vented the scientific committee, despite intercessional
meetings, from making certain additional recommendations
regarding assessment.
Some participants argued that the slow pace in imple-
mentation of CCAMLR would discredit the convention and
that the commission would be in no better position at its
September 1985 meeting to make judgments on conservation
measures than it had been in 1984. They questioned
whether lack of political will, rather than lack of data,
is the problem, and stressed that at some point commission
members will have to proceed to adopt additional, substan-
tive measures. One participant questioned why no interim
conservation measures had been adopted and stated that
there should be some discussion of the need for a mora-
torium on the harvesting of certain species.
Others countered that this assessment showed little
appreciation of ongoing efforts to establish an effective
assessment capability. They noted that stock assessment
efforts are being conducted primarily with a view toward
the 1985 meeting and that it would be a bad precedent if
determinations were made in the absence of soundly based
scientific judgment. (The 1984 meeting established ad
hoc working groups on fish stock assessment and ecosystem
monitoring. Workshops are to be held before the 1985
CCAMLR meeting.)
Gulland endorsed this view, pointing out that the
CCAMLR secretariat and the nations party to the treaty
are working to collect more detailed data on fish stocks.
He questioned whether any arrangement other than the
CCAMLR would have been more successful in obtaining data,
getting agreement on conservation measures, and pressing
countries to adopt these measures.
Elaborating on experiences under existing fishery
agreements as a measure of progress in the implementation
of CCAMLR, Gulland stated that a number of fishery com-
missions have developed good data collection and assess-
ment techniques. In fact, since the introduction of
200-mile fishery zones, coastal nations have found it
difficult to carry out these tasks by themselves.
Moreover, most commissions commenced work with a good
storehouse of data. CCAMLR, on the other hand, started
with virtually no data, so its progress to date is quite
good.
OCR for page 241
241
On the question of how much information is required to
enable decision makers to be confident of a reasonably
sound basis for judgment, Gulland alluded to the amounts
of data needed for increasingly complex questions, such
as, "Does a ten-million-ton krill recovery have a serious
effect on whale populations?" He believed that the
relevant question is rather whether the incoming data was
up to the standard required by scientists; the answer for
CCAMLR at this time would be that they are not.
BIOMASS
The Biological Investigations of Marine Antarctic Systems
and Stocks (BIOMASS) program was commended for its data
collection contributions to information needs under
CCAMLR, and it was urged that the program be continued
and expanded to include more cooperative international
efforts. (BIOMASS will officially conclude in 1986
unless its life is extended.) National support for the
program has varied in the past. The BIOMASS data are now
being computerized and will be lodged in the British
Antarctic Survey and be available for analysis.
There was some discussion of Gulland's point that the
respective roles of the CCAMLR scientific committee and
SCAR are not clearly delineated. Some participants
expressed doubt that the first and second BIOMASS expedi-
tions, FIBEX and SIBEX, would have been undertaken by the
scientific committee. The scientists pointed out that
their work is driven by curiosity, although they recog-
nized that at some point its results may have practical
application as well.
EXPERIMENTAL F ISHERY
The discussion of developing Southern Ocean fishing as an
experimental fishery contrasted the situation of
Antarctic krill with that of finfish in the Southern
Ocean. With respect to finfish, CCAMLR is in the same
position as virtually every other convention whose
objective is to conserve finfish species; that is, the
negotiations take place after the stock is already
seriously depleted (although the Southern Ocean stocks
might not have been so depleted had there not been a rush
to establish coastal state 200-mile zones of fishery
jurisdiction elsewhere)
.
OCR for page 242
242
With respect to krill, the managers are in a position
to make use of their time. Nonetheless, they could find
themselves in the same situation as have other fishery
commissions if they spend too much time deciding whether
sufficient data exist and do not act until it is too
late; there is time, but not an unlimited amount of time,
to collect basic data and to design research programs.
There are also good biological reasons to be more
concerned with krill, because of its place in the Southern
Ocean ecosystem. Moreover, the CCAMLR expressly adopted
the ecosystem standard in its approach to conservation.
. . .
There is little doubt that krill pose certain diffi-
culties for determining when conservation measures should
be adopted. The classic means of data gathering and of
studying species distribution and abundance for management
purposes--catch per unit of effort and the monitoring of
key indicator species--might not be applicable to krill.
Specific interactions between krill and other Southern
Ocean species would cause some difficulty in identifying
sound management practices: krill is relatively short
lived, and its position in the ecosystem is difficult to
establish. The criterion of catch per unit of effort
might not be particularly useful when applied to krill,
because these figures would be distorted by krill swarm
density as well as by the processing ability of the
harvester. Acoustic surveys will be helpful only in
small areas.
Gulland suggested that a better method might be to see
what distances a harvester would have to sail before
encountering a new swarm; that is, to rely on catch per
unit of fishing time rather than on catch per unit of
effort. The breeding success of nonharvested, dependent
species such as the albatross could also be utilized as
an index of krill abundance, although albatross breeding
success reflects other factors as well.
For these reasons, the idea of a krill fisheries
experiment was viewed as an attractive one, although no
one was certain of the best way to get the information
required to manage the krill fishery most effectively.
It was suggested that the SCAR/IUCN symposium (Bonn,
April 1985) might be helpful in answering this question.
In addition, it was noted that the meeting of the ad hoc
group on ecosystem monitoring established at the 1984
CCAMLR meeting (Seattle, May 1985) would look at what
sorts of observations of penguins and other creatures
would be required.
OCR for page 243
243
Returning to the experience of existing fishery
commissions, Gulland noted that the situations in which
they had not worked well were those cases in which the
stocks were already depleted and fishermen were being
forced to reduce their catches. Another participant
noted that most of these agreements had covered a single
species. He wondered whether, with respect to single
species--there might be some similarities with the current
situation in Antarctica; that is, vested economic inter-
ests would be affected.
Gulland agreed with Barnes that in general the lack of
accord on allocation of national quotas is a weakness,
but he pointed out that many existing commissions do not
themselves allocate quotas, leaving this to member coun-
tries to agree on. What the CCAMLR commission might do
is to determine a maximum allowable catch and leave it to
the interested member countries to decide directly among
themselves how to allocate this catch. Thus, he did not
believe that the absence of national quotas is a funda-
mental weakness in the CCAMLR.
Another speaker reaffirmed Barnes' comment that the
fact that the CCAMLR has not expressly provided for
allocation of national quotas on the list of permissible
conservation measures in no way detracts from the com-
mission's full power to adopt any kind of measure,
including national quotas, to attain its objectives. He
explained that the impression that the commission does
not have such competence derives from a misinterpretation
of the report of the consultative meeting at which it was
decided to initiate the negotiation of the CCAMLR. That
report indicates that the agreement will not include
national quotas on other forms of economic regulation.
What this means is that the CCAMLR will not itself set
forth entitlements to resources among its parties (e.g.,
as between fishing states or states with coastal claims
in Antarctica). This is in keeping with the nature of
CCAMLR, the purpose of which is to establish the legal
obligations and mechanisms necessary to conserve Antarctic
marine living resources. It was not intended--nor is it
reflected in the text of the convention--that the commis-
sion will be limited in taking measures including national
allocations--that it believes necessary to achieve the
CCAMLR objective. The list of possible conservation
measures in the convention, which does not specifically
mention national quotas, is illustrative, as indicated by
the final point in the list: "the taking of such other
conservation measures as the commission considers
OCR for page 244
244
necessary for the fulfillment of the objective of this
Convention" [Article IX(2)(i)].
Finally, according to Gulland, operating by consensus
has not posed major problems for other fishery
commissions.
INSPECTION AND OTHER CCAMLR MEASURES
Several participants shared the panelists' view that the
commission should demonstrate that it is making progress
on establishing a system of observation and inspection,
as called for in Articles IX(l)(g) and XXIV. They pointed
out that a lack of scientific data does not affect this
issue.
Gulland made a distinction between inspection and
enforcement in commenting on the effectiveness of existing
fishery commissions. While most commissions have estab-
lished effective inspection systems, it is difficult to
find any international agreement that is effectively
enforced. Unless fishermen agree that conservation
regulations protect their long-term interests reasonably
well, the regulations are unlikely to work.
Measures to ensure that marine mammals, birds, and
other nontarget species are not adversely affected by
lost or discarded fishing gear or other marine debris was
cited as another substantive area in which the commission
could act without waiting for additional data. On the
other hand, it was noted that the adoption of a strategy
for management and monitoring of living resources and the
study of relationships with neighboring ecosystems, while
important topics for the commission to consider, were in
part dependent on acquiring data and outlining strategies
to do so.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
living resources
