Convention applies”.
48 At the time of writing, a considerable number of CCAMLR
Members participated on this basis in CCAMLR, and were not engaged in fishing
activities in the CAMLR Convention Area.
49 While participation of such ‘non-user
States’ is also possible in some of the (other) RFMO/As listed in Table 5.1 above,
this entitlement hardly seems to have been exercised in practice.
50
The objective of the CAMLR Convention is also unlike that of any of the (other)
RFMO/As listed in Table 5.1 above. Paragraph 1 of Article II of the CAMLR
Convention stipulates that its objective is “the conservation of Antarctic marine
living resources”, while paragraph 2 clarifies that “the term ‘conservation’ includes
rational use”. Notably absent in these paragraphs and paragraph 3 of Article II are the
words ‘fish’, ‘fishery resources’, ‘fishing’ or ‘fisheries.’ By way of contrast, reference can be made to the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation
(SPRFMO)—one of the newest RFMOs—whose constitutive instrument contains
the following objective:
The objective of this Convention is, through the application of the precautionary approach
and an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, to ensure the long-term conservation
and sustainable use of fishery resources and, in so doing, to safeguard the marine ecosystems
in which these resources occur.
51
Interestingly, CCAMLR is not only included in FAO’s list of RFBs but is also
treated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as an independent
regional seas programme.
52 It is submitted that listing CCAMLR among RFBs is
more convincing, as its competence is in principle limited to fishing, fishing-related
activities and research, but does not extend to any other human activity.
53 Conversely, the mandates of the principal decision-making bodies under regional seas
programmes extend in principle to all human activities, while accepting the primacy
of RFMOs and other relevant sectoral organizations.
54
48 Art. VII(2)(b) and (d) of the CAMLR Convention. For other linkages, see the Preamble and Arts
III–V.
49 For instance Belgium, Brazil, Germany, India, Italy, Namibia, Sweden and the United States.
50 See Molenaar at subsection 5.2.
51 Art. 2 of the SPRFMO Convention (Convention on the Conservation and Management of High
Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (Auckland, 14 November 2009. In force
24 August 2012; www.sprfmo.int)).
52 See http://web.unep.org/regionalseas/.
53 This is confirmed by the Preamble and many provisions (e.g. Arts II(3), V, VI, IX and XXIX(1)).
Moreover, CCAMLR has taken measures to prevent impacts by fishing vessels and scientific
research vessels on Antarctic marine living resources by adopting measures relating to maritime
safety, vessel-source pollution and the introduction of alien species (see, e.g. CCAMLR Conservation Measures 24-04 (2017), para. 16; 26-01 (2018); 91-03 (2009), para. 3; and 91-04 (2011),
para 6; 91-05 (2016), para. 10, and CCAMLR Resolutions 20/XXII (2003), 23/XXIII (2004),
28/XXVII (2008), 29/XXVIII (2009), 33/XXX (2011) and 34/XXXI (2012)).
54 E.g. the mandate of the OSPAR Commission established under the OSPAR Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic of 22 September
1992 (2345 UNTS 67, as amended, consolidated version available at www.ospar.org)) vis-à-vis
fisheries and maritime transport pursuant to Art. 4 of Annex V.
5 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
93
48 At the time of writing, a considerable number of CCAMLR
Members participated on this basis in CCAMLR, and were not engaged in fishing
activities in the CAMLR Convention Area.
49 While participation of such ‘non-user
States’ is also possible in some of the (other) RFMO/As listed in Table 5.1 above,
this entitlement hardly seems to have been exercised in practice.
50
The objective of the CAMLR Convention is also unlike that of any of the (other)
RFMO/As listed in Table 5.1 above. Paragraph 1 of Article II of the CAMLR
Convention stipulates that its objective is “the conservation of Antarctic marine
living resources”, while paragraph 2 clarifies that “the term ‘conservation’ includes
rational use”. Notably absent in these paragraphs and paragraph 3 of Article II are the
words ‘fish’, ‘fishery resources’, ‘fishing’ or ‘fisheries.’ By way of contrast, reference can be made to the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation
(SPRFMO)—one of the newest RFMOs—whose constitutive instrument contains
the following objective:
The objective of this Convention is, through the application of the precautionary approach
and an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, to ensure the long-term conservation
and sustainable use of fishery resources and, in so doing, to safeguard the marine ecosystems
in which these resources occur.
51
Interestingly, CCAMLR is not only included in FAO’s list of RFBs but is also
treated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as an independent
regional seas programme.
52 It is submitted that listing CCAMLR among RFBs is
more convincing, as its competence is in principle limited to fishing, fishing-related
activities and research, but does not extend to any other human activity.
53 Conversely, the mandates of the principal decision-making bodies under regional seas
programmes extend in principle to all human activities, while accepting the primacy
of RFMOs and other relevant sectoral organizations.
54
48 Art. VII(2)(b) and (d) of the CAMLR Convention. For other linkages, see the Preamble and Arts
III–V.
49 For instance Belgium, Brazil, Germany, India, Italy, Namibia, Sweden and the United States.
50 See Molenaar at subsection 5.2.
51 Art. 2 of the SPRFMO Convention (Convention on the Conservation and Management of High
Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (Auckland, 14 November 2009. In force
24 August 2012; www.sprfmo.int)).
52 See http://web.unep.org/regionalseas/.
53 This is confirmed by the Preamble and many provisions (e.g. Arts II(3), V, VI, IX and XXIX(1)).
Moreover, CCAMLR has taken measures to prevent impacts by fishing vessels and scientific
research vessels on Antarctic marine living resources by adopting measures relating to maritime
safety, vessel-source pollution and the introduction of alien species (see, e.g. CCAMLR Conservation Measures 24-04 (2017), para. 16; 26-01 (2018); 91-03 (2009), para. 3; and 91-04 (2011),
para 6; 91-05 (2016), para. 10, and CCAMLR Resolutions 20/XXII (2003), 23/XXIII (2004),
28/XXVII (2008), 29/XXVIII (2009), 33/XXX (2011) and 34/XXXI (2012)).
54 E.g. the mandate of the OSPAR Commission established under the OSPAR Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic of 22 September
1992 (2345 UNTS 67, as amended, consolidated version available at www.ospar.org)) vis-à-vis
fisheries and maritime transport pursuant to Art. 4 of Annex V.
5 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
93