Shaping an international agreement on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction: Lessons from high seas fisheries

Marine Policy ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 210-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Blasiak ◽  
Nobuyuki Yagi
Keyword(s):  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
International Agreement ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
High Seas

International ocean management debates will swell

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Marine Conservation ◽  
International Agreement ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Ocean Management ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
High Seas

Subject Management of the oceans and biodiversity. Significance This year, negotiations on a new international agreement to govern biodiversity conservation on the high seas, entitled 'Biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction' (BBNJ), will commence. This follows a UN General Assembly resolution in December 2017. The first round of talks will begin at the UN's New York headquarters from September 4-17, but an initial organising meeting will convene in March to appoint a conference chair and agree on an initial ‘zero draft’ preliminary text. Impacts Pressures to establish new institutions to govern oceanic issues, and controversies over their remit, will grow. Formal talks will provide campaigning opportunities for marine-conservation-oriented civil society groups. Concerns about high seas climate geoengineering (counteracting climate change, such as via iron fertilisation) will grow.

Ocean Fertilisation and Climate Change: The Need to Regulate Emerging High Seas Uses

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Rayfuse ◽  
Mark G. Lawrence ◽  
Kristina M. Gjerde
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Environmental Safety ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Global Regime ◽  
London Protocol ◽  
High Seas

Abstract Geo-engineering and environmental modification techniques are increasingly being proposed as climate change mitigation strategies. Ocean fertilisation has been promoted as a simple solution to the problem of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. However, neither its environmental safety nor its efficacy has been adequately assessed. This article examines the legality of ocean fertilisation under the law of the sea and concludes that it is subject to regulation under the London Convention and London Protocol as its potential for harm is contrary to the aims of these agreements. Hence, the sale of carbon offsets to fund ocean fertilisation activities should be prohibited unless and until an adequate risk assessment based on independent peer-reviewed science has established that the benefits outweigh the potential for harm, and appropriate regulation is in place to ensure that real, measurable, long-term CO2 sequestration can be independently verified. The initial uncertainties surrounding the appropriate regulatory regime for ocean fertilisation highlight the need for a comprehensive global regime for the prior assessment and on-going monitoring of existing, new and emerging high seas activities and uses to ensure they do not have adverse impacts on marine biodiversity and the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

International high seas biodiversity concerns to rise

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
Marine Resources ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Content Type ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Core Issues ◽  
High Seas

Subject High seas biodiversity. Significance The third session of the Intergovernmental Conference on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction took place in New York last month, making notable progress on the structure of a new international treaty on governance of the high seas. Divergences nevertheless remain on several long-debated core issues, such as the complexity of regulations required to designate new marine protected areas (MPAs), and the depth of obligations, including by the private sector, to share benefits from extracting living marine resources. Impacts Common standards will be developed for collecting and sharing data on high seas fishing and other activities. High seas scientific research will face a new regulatory environment after the treaty enters into force. Flag states will face scrutiny over flags of convenience, hindering firms’ moves to shift ship registrations to less strict jurisdictions.

Marine Protected Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Some Practical Perspectives for Moving Ahead

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina M. Gjerde ◽  
Anna Rulska-Domino
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Marine Conservation ◽  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Political Commitments ◽  
High Seas

Abstract Despite strong legal duties and political commitments for marine conservation and ecosystem-based management, biodiversity in the high seas and the Area (jointly referred to as areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ)) is under increasing threat. One important tool for enhancing conservation and multi-sectoral cooperation is the establishment and maintenance of representative networks of marine protected areas (MPAs). This commentary reviews potential avenues for accelerating progress towards representative MPA networks as part of a larger-scale effort towards improving the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. It builds on the report by Petra Drankier, Marine Protected Areas in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, Report on Research Question 2 of the Study on ‘Biological Diversity and Governance of the High Seas’ (2011), which describes the applicable global and regional conventions by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of proposed avenues for progress, including a possible multilateral agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). The commentary concludes with some observations for a pragmatic path ahead.

scholarly journals The global network of ports supporting high seas fishing

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. eabe3470
Author(s):  
Jorge P. Rodríguez ◽  
Juan Fernández-Gracia ◽  
Carlos M. Duarte ◽  
Xabier Irigoien ◽  
Víctor M. Eguíluz
Keyword(s):  
Fishing Effort ◽  
Global Network ◽  
Automatic Identification ◽  
Identification System ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Fishing Vessels ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Commons ◽  
High Seas

Fisheries in waters beyond national jurisdiction (“high seas”) are difficult to monitor and manage. Their regulation for sustainability requires critical information on how fishing effort is distributed across fishing and landing areas, including possible border effects at the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) limits. We infer the global network linking harbors supporting fishing vessels to fishing areas in high seas from automatic identification system tracking data in 2014, observing a modular structure, with vessels departing from a given harbor fishing mostly in a single province. The top 16% of these harbors support 84% of fishing effort in high seas, with harbors in low- and middle-income countries ranked among the top supporters. Fishing effort concentrates along narrow strips attached to the boundaries of EEZs with productive fisheries, identifying a free-riding behavior that jeopardizes efforts by nations to sustainably manage their fisheries, perpetuating the tragedy of the commons affecting global fishery resources.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document