understanding on what these mechanisms actually do. Such a role-oriented approach
can also be applied to bodies like the Arctic Council or the broader ‘Arctic Council
System’, whose mandates are not confined to the marine domain but also encompass
land territory.
69
In addition to CCAMLR, there are at least three examples of (other) RFMO/As
that perform additional roles besides conservation and management of fisheries
resources. The first is JNRFC, which also pursues conservation, management and
related scientific research of various seal and whale species, and has set TACs for
commercial harvest and/or scientific purposes of harp and hooded seals in recent
years.
70 At the 48th (2018) Annual JNRFC Session, Norway even raised the
question whether it would be possible for Norwegian vessels to resume whaling
for minke whales—in accordance with Norway’s obligations pursuant to the
ICRW
71
—in the Russian Economic Zone. Russia noted that this would not be
possible under Russian law.
72 The role performed by JNRFC on the regulation of
harvesting of marine mammals is facilitated by its mandate, which is related to the
“living resources of the sea”.
73 Interestingly, this mandate-component is essentially
the same as that of CCAMLR, namely “marine living resources”. As the CAMLR
Convention accords primacy to the ICRW and CCAS,
74 however, it is in principle
not possible for CCAMLR to regulate harvesting of marine mammals.
75
The second example is GFCM, which performs several additional roles besides
conservation and management of fisheries resources. Facilitated by its mandatecomponent of “living marine resources”,
76 GFCM has adopted several (legally
binding) Recommendations relating to the exploitation of red coral.
77 Moreover,
pursuant to its mandate-component of “sustainable development of aquaculture”,
78
GFCM has adopted a Recommendation and several (non-legally binding)
69 See Molenaar (2012).
70 See the 2018 Report of the Working Group on Seals and Section 6 of the Joint RussianNorwegian Scientific Research Program on Living Marine Resources in 2019, attached as Appendices 8 and 10 to the Protocol of the 48th (2018) Annual JNRFC Session.
71 Note 4 supra.
72 Protocol of the 48th (2018) Annual JNRFC Session, at section 18.1 and Appendix 8, section 5.1.
73 Framework Agreement, note 37 supra, at Art. I(1).
74 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, London, 1 June 1972. In force 11 March
1978 (1080 UNTS 176).
75 Cf. Art. VI of the CAMLR Convention.
76 Agreement for the Establishment of a General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean, Rome,
24 September 1949. In force 20 February 1952 (GFCM Agreement; 126 UNTS 239), as amended.
Consolidated version available at http://www.fao.org/treaties/results/en/?search=adv&subj_coll=
ArticleXIV. See Art. 2(2).
77 Recommendations GFCM/41/2017/5, GFCM/36/2012/1 and GFCM/35/2011/2.
78 Art. 2(2) of the GFCM Agreement. This species does not fall within the definition of ‘fish’ laid
down in Art. 1(1)(c) of the Fish Stocks Agreement, which only includes molluscs and crustaceans.
Note the interesting definition of ‘fishery resources’ in Art.1(1)(f) of the SPRFMO Convention
(note 51 supra), which includes “other living marine resources as may be decided by the
Commission”.
5 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
97
can also be applied to bodies like the Arctic Council or the broader ‘Arctic Council
System’, whose mandates are not confined to the marine domain but also encompass
land territory.
69
In addition to CCAMLR, there are at least three examples of (other) RFMO/As
that perform additional roles besides conservation and management of fisheries
resources. The first is JNRFC, which also pursues conservation, management and
related scientific research of various seal and whale species, and has set TACs for
commercial harvest and/or scientific purposes of harp and hooded seals in recent
years.
70 At the 48th (2018) Annual JNRFC Session, Norway even raised the
question whether it would be possible for Norwegian vessels to resume whaling
for minke whales—in accordance with Norway’s obligations pursuant to the
ICRW
71
—in the Russian Economic Zone. Russia noted that this would not be
possible under Russian law.
72 The role performed by JNRFC on the regulation of
harvesting of marine mammals is facilitated by its mandate, which is related to the
“living resources of the sea”.
73 Interestingly, this mandate-component is essentially
the same as that of CCAMLR, namely “marine living resources”. As the CAMLR
Convention accords primacy to the ICRW and CCAS,
74 however, it is in principle
not possible for CCAMLR to regulate harvesting of marine mammals.
75
The second example is GFCM, which performs several additional roles besides
conservation and management of fisheries resources. Facilitated by its mandatecomponent of “living marine resources”,
76 GFCM has adopted several (legally
binding) Recommendations relating to the exploitation of red coral.
77 Moreover,
pursuant to its mandate-component of “sustainable development of aquaculture”,
78
GFCM has adopted a Recommendation and several (non-legally binding)
69 See Molenaar (2012).
70 See the 2018 Report of the Working Group on Seals and Section 6 of the Joint RussianNorwegian Scientific Research Program on Living Marine Resources in 2019, attached as Appendices 8 and 10 to the Protocol of the 48th (2018) Annual JNRFC Session.
71 Note 4 supra.
72 Protocol of the 48th (2018) Annual JNRFC Session, at section 18.1 and Appendix 8, section 5.1.
73 Framework Agreement, note 37 supra, at Art. I(1).
74 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, London, 1 June 1972. In force 11 March
1978 (1080 UNTS 176).
75 Cf. Art. VI of the CAMLR Convention.
76 Agreement for the Establishment of a General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean, Rome,
24 September 1949. In force 20 February 1952 (GFCM Agreement; 126 UNTS 239), as amended.
Consolidated version available at http://www.fao.org/treaties/results/en/?search=adv&subj_coll=
ArticleXIV. See Art. 2(2).
77 Recommendations GFCM/41/2017/5, GFCM/36/2012/1 and GFCM/35/2011/2.
78 Art. 2(2) of the GFCM Agreement. This species does not fall within the definition of ‘fish’ laid
down in Art. 1(1)(c) of the Fish Stocks Agreement, which only includes molluscs and crustaceans.
Note the interesting definition of ‘fishery resources’ in Art.1(1)(f) of the SPRFMO Convention
(note 51 supra), which includes “other living marine resources as may be decided by the
Commission”.
5 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
97