3.3 Key Functions
An appropriate starting point for determining the key functions of RFMO/As relating
to the conservation and management of fisheries resources is Article 10 of the Fish
Stocks Agreement, which is specifically devoted to functions of RFMO/As and
contains 13 paragraphs. A more recent understanding of the key functions of RFMO/
As is provided by the common list of criteria for performance reviews of RFMOs
that was developed by the so-called ‘Kobe Process’—a cooperative process among
the five tuna RFMOs—on the basis of the performance criteria used for the First
(2006) NEAFC Performance Review.
33 An updated version of this list used by the
Second (2016) ICCAT Performance Review
34 groups the criteria together in the
following five functional areas:
1. Conservation and management; which includes such key functions as data
collection and sharing, setting total allowable catches (TACs) for target species,
capacity management, allocating fishing opportunities and implementing EAF
management;
2. Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS); comprising port State measures and
integrated MCS measures (e.g. observers, catch documentation and trade tracking
schemes, restrictions on transshipment, and boarding and inspection schemes);
3. Compliance and enforcement; which includes cooperative mechanisms to detect
and deter non-compliance (e.g. compliance committees and IUU Vessel Lists);
4. Governance; which includes such functions as decision-making, dispute settlement, cooperation with other RFMO/As and capacity building; and
5. Science; which covers in particular the quality and provision of scientific advice
that is required for the assessment of stocks of target species and EAF management more broadly.
3.4 Qualifying as an RFMO or an RFMA
3.4.1 Introduction
As noted at the outset of Sect. 3.1, qualifying as an RFMO or an RFMA determines
the applicability of particular rights and obligations under international fisheries law,
which can be relevant for participants as well as non-participants. The following
three subsections examine whether or not JNRFC, the CAOF Agreement and
CCAMLR qualify as an RFMO or an RFMA. Inspired by the conclusion that
33 See Performance Review by Regional Fishery Bodies: Introduction, Summaries, Synthesis and
Best Practices. Volume I: CCAMLR, CCSBT, ICCAT, IOTC, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC (FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1072 (FIPI/C1072): 2012), p. 5. The criteria are reproduced
in Appendix 1.
34 See the Report of the Second (2016) ICCAT Performance Review, at Annex 2.
5 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
89
An appropriate starting point for determining the key functions of RFMO/As relating
to the conservation and management of fisheries resources is Article 10 of the Fish
Stocks Agreement, which is specifically devoted to functions of RFMO/As and
contains 13 paragraphs. A more recent understanding of the key functions of RFMO/
As is provided by the common list of criteria for performance reviews of RFMOs
that was developed by the so-called ‘Kobe Process’—a cooperative process among
the five tuna RFMOs—on the basis of the performance criteria used for the First
(2006) NEAFC Performance Review.
33 An updated version of this list used by the
Second (2016) ICCAT Performance Review
34 groups the criteria together in the
following five functional areas:
1. Conservation and management; which includes such key functions as data
collection and sharing, setting total allowable catches (TACs) for target species,
capacity management, allocating fishing opportunities and implementing EAF
management;
2. Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS); comprising port State measures and
integrated MCS measures (e.g. observers, catch documentation and trade tracking
schemes, restrictions on transshipment, and boarding and inspection schemes);
3. Compliance and enforcement; which includes cooperative mechanisms to detect
and deter non-compliance (e.g. compliance committees and IUU Vessel Lists);
4. Governance; which includes such functions as decision-making, dispute settlement, cooperation with other RFMO/As and capacity building; and
5. Science; which covers in particular the quality and provision of scientific advice
that is required for the assessment of stocks of target species and EAF management more broadly.
3.4 Qualifying as an RFMO or an RFMA
3.4.1 Introduction
As noted at the outset of Sect. 3.1, qualifying as an RFMO or an RFMA determines
the applicability of particular rights and obligations under international fisheries law,
which can be relevant for participants as well as non-participants. The following
three subsections examine whether or not JNRFC, the CAOF Agreement and
CCAMLR qualify as an RFMO or an RFMA. Inspired by the conclusion that
33 See Performance Review by Regional Fishery Bodies: Introduction, Summaries, Synthesis and
Best Practices. Volume I: CCAMLR, CCSBT, ICCAT, IOTC, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC (FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1072 (FIPI/C1072): 2012), p. 5. The criteria are reproduced
in Appendix 1.
34 See the Report of the Second (2016) ICCAT Performance Review, at Annex 2.
5 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
89