| Are high seas
MPAs a long term solution? Jon Nevill and Graeme Kelleher Two emails dated 11 September 2006
Dear Graeme
Although I fully support the concept of high seas MPAs as vital short
and medium-term conservation tools, I do want to make a comment
about where we need to go in the long term. My comments are also
relevant to the coming UNGA fisheries discussions.
Einstein is often quoted as saying that the most difficult problems of
today cannot be solved through the same thinking which created them.
This is very much the case with the high seas, where the very concept
of MPAs rests on the premise that most of the ocean is at risk - and
this in turn rests on the historic acceptance of freedom of the seas
and the freedom to fish. This is the thinking we need to confront and
change.
Who benefits by these freedoms today? Martin Exel (Austral Fisheries)
recently said that the world's legitimate fishing companies want
governments to manage the high seas, and that freedom of the seas
primarily benefits illegitimate fishers. It is becoming increasingly
obvious that this is indeed the case. Yet in a recent document, the
Australian Government stated: "We support the freedoms of the
high seas, but recognise that States have obligations to protect and
preserve the marine environment..." As a nation, I believe
that Australia needs to take a different line - one that increasingly
suggests that these freedoms need to be replaced with an effective
international governance regime.
Where do we need to go in the long term? Sylvia Earle (echoing the
concerns of marine scientists and conservation biologists worldwide)
has said: "We must place biodiversity conservation at the
center of ocean governance." This is the crucial
point.
Government wildlife agencies in many countries have, over many
decades, undergone important name changes and changes in focus. In
Victoria, for instance, the late 19th century "Department of
Hunting and Game" evolved into the 20th century "Department
of Wildlife" which is now the "Department of Sustainability
and Environment". Fishery Departments around the world have
not evolved in the same way, to the great detriment of marine
biodiversity, and, in many cases, to the great detriment of the
fisheries themselves.
We need to be pushing the Australian Government towards a future which
will see Fishery Departments replaced by Ocean Conservation
Departments. And the Australian Government in turn needs to be pushing
the United Nations General Assembly.
The CCAMLR convention is the best model we have in the world today for
this fundamental change in outlook. While certainly not
faultless, the Commission is by far the most effective RFMO. Yet (and
again this is the point) it is not an RFMO, it is a organisation
focussed on conservation. It is an "ocean conservation
agency" and a model for the growth of "regional ocean
conservation agencies" throughout the world. Article 2 of the
Convention states: "The
objective of this Convention is the conservation of Antarctic marine
living resources. For the purposes of this Convention, the term
‘conservation’ includes rational use." Importantly, the
convention rests explicitly on the principles of ecosystem-based
management and precaution, with a requirement that these principles must
be applied, monitored and reported. As a consequence, the whole of the
CCAMLR area, vast as it is, technically meets the IUCN criteria for a
class IV protected area (putting aside for a moment the issue of
non-member State fishing).
The UNGA sent the Coordinators
First Draft of the Fisheries Resolution to States for comment on
the 25th of August 2006. In my view, although in many respects
comprehensive, it entirely fails to promote the evolution in
governance which is so desperately needed. It rests, in Einstein's
words, on the thinking that has created the problems.
And, unless
fishing agencies and conservation agencies push their States to move
towards this evolution, nothing will change. The UNGA is the most
appropriate vehicle to promote this change, and we have an opportunity
now. Unless this matter is raised at the UNGA discussions scheduled in
New York for 2 October 2006, the opportunity to promote gradual (but
vital) change will have been lost for this annual cycle of the
negotiations.
Regards
Jon.
Jon Nevill
Phone 0422 926 515 Australia Dear Jon, I agree strongly with all that you say. We in the High Seas MPAs Task
Force and many others have been trying to change the international regime
of high seas governance for ages. Eg at the Malaga Workshop in 2003, we
pursued the issue of empowerment of UNCLOS to allow effective management
of the high seas in relation to living resources- and not just an
obsession with minerals. Although UNCLOS [and CBD] place general
obligations on Parties to conserve the oceans, the ISA's functions are
limited and many lawyers have tended to claim that UNCLOS is irrelevant to
living resources of the water column. While this extreme claim seems to
have diminished in the past few years, there is an immense resistance from
countries like the USA to ANY restrictions on their use of the high seas.
USA is not even a Party to UNCLOS.
|