Commission (NEAFC), the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), the
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO), the South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO), the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO), the General Fisheries Commission for the
Mediterranean (GFCM), and the CCAMLR in the Antarctic. There are five broad
categories of measures that are taken by RFMOs, to wit, ‘measures relating to stock
assessment, management of fishing effort, allocation of fishing opportunities, compliance and enforcement, and protection of the wider marine environment.
48 Even
though the FAO exercises minimal authority over most of the RFMOs, it nevertheless still plays a ‘catalytic and coordinating role by bringing together these institutions to discuss common challenges and what can be done to address them’.
49
While region-based mechanisms have their inherent drawbacks such as outliers
and free riders as well as ineffective enforcement, such initiatives have proven to be a
useful approach towards the conservation of living resources and the protection of
the marine environment. The RSP arrangements allow for a proven environmental
protection framework to be applied from one region to another and modified
accordingly to specifically tailor the needs and priorities of the different geographical
location.
50 Despite some shortcomings especially in addressing pollution to the
marine environment from land-based sources as well as lack of enforcement bite,
RSPs have in the 40-some years of its existence brought a positive influence in the
protection of the marine environment.
51
Likewise, the RFMOs have made a positive and major contribution in the field of
fisheries
52 despite the challenges faced concerning regime participation, allocation
of the total allowable catch and unregulated fishing.
53 While such institutional
measures are largely effective in the region in which it operates among parties, the
greatest challenge faced by RFMOs is the enforcement of conservation measures
adopted in the high seas against non-parties.
54 In response to this challenge, the
growing attention towards port State enforcement measures provides a possible
solution to this debacle and can help supplement the efforts by RFMOs to promote
the conservation of living resources.
55
Finally, the existence of other separate multilateral treaty regimes that deal with
environmental-related themes in the context of the marine environment will be
highlighted. Again, as it would be impossible to identify all the relevant regimes
with the limited space here, only a handful of such regimes will be discussed with the
aim of providing some examples rather than an exhaustive study.
48 Rayfuse (2015), p. 450.
49 Harrison (2011), p. 233.
50 Harrison (2015b), p. 69; Hulm (1983), p. 4; Haas (1989).
51 Oral (2015), pp. 361–362.
52 Churchill and Lowe (1999), pp. 23–24.
53 Molenaar (2003).
54 Gillespie (2011), p. 446.
55 Palma-Robles (2016), pp. 151–152.
48
P. A. Singh
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO), the South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO), the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO), the General Fisheries Commission for the
Mediterranean (GFCM), and the CCAMLR in the Antarctic. There are five broad
categories of measures that are taken by RFMOs, to wit, ‘measures relating to stock
assessment, management of fishing effort, allocation of fishing opportunities, compliance and enforcement, and protection of the wider marine environment.
48 Even
though the FAO exercises minimal authority over most of the RFMOs, it nevertheless still plays a ‘catalytic and coordinating role by bringing together these institutions to discuss common challenges and what can be done to address them’.
49
While region-based mechanisms have their inherent drawbacks such as outliers
and free riders as well as ineffective enforcement, such initiatives have proven to be a
useful approach towards the conservation of living resources and the protection of
the marine environment. The RSP arrangements allow for a proven environmental
protection framework to be applied from one region to another and modified
accordingly to specifically tailor the needs and priorities of the different geographical
location.
50 Despite some shortcomings especially in addressing pollution to the
marine environment from land-based sources as well as lack of enforcement bite,
RSPs have in the 40-some years of its existence brought a positive influence in the
protection of the marine environment.
51
Likewise, the RFMOs have made a positive and major contribution in the field of
fisheries
52 despite the challenges faced concerning regime participation, allocation
of the total allowable catch and unregulated fishing.
53 While such institutional
measures are largely effective in the region in which it operates among parties, the
greatest challenge faced by RFMOs is the enforcement of conservation measures
adopted in the high seas against non-parties.
54 In response to this challenge, the
growing attention towards port State enforcement measures provides a possible
solution to this debacle and can help supplement the efforts by RFMOs to promote
the conservation of living resources.
55
Finally, the existence of other separate multilateral treaty regimes that deal with
environmental-related themes in the context of the marine environment will be
highlighted. Again, as it would be impossible to identify all the relevant regimes
with the limited space here, only a handful of such regimes will be discussed with the
aim of providing some examples rather than an exhaustive study.
48 Rayfuse (2015), p. 450.
49 Harrison (2011), p. 233.
50 Harrison (2015b), p. 69; Hulm (1983), p. 4; Haas (1989).
51 Oral (2015), pp. 361–362.
52 Churchill and Lowe (1999), pp. 23–24.
53 Molenaar (2003).
54 Gillespie (2011), p. 446.
55 Palma-Robles (2016), pp. 151–152.
48
P. A. Singh