Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T01:33:27.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - The Pursuit of Good Regulatory Design Principles in International Fisheries Law

What Possibility of Smarter International Regulation?

from Part II - Fisheries and Forestry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2019

By
Richard Barnes
Edited by
Judith van Erp ,
Michael Faure ,
André Nollkaemper  and
Niels Philipsen
Judith van Erp
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Michael Faure
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
André Nollkaemper
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Niels Philipsen
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) facilitate international cooperation for the management of shared transboundary fish resources like tuna. However, RFMOs are challenged with dynamic interests which have slowed progress towards collective decisions on establishing key management measures such as harvest control rules and target and limit reference points. Private institutions like the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a third-party certification standard, have been introduced to incentivise the adoption of these and more measures. The role of MSC as a private institution is thought to work in a linear way – providing economic incentives for meeting its standards. However, based on a comparison of three RFMOs in the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, this chapter shows how the MSC influences decision making in very different ways. In doing so we demonstrate different ‘pathways’ through which MSC has been used to create change at the RMFO level. The findings hold relevance for a wider understanding of how third-party certification contributes to change beyond market incentives alone.
Type
Chapter
Information
Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm , pp. 97 - 125
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, K. & Snidal, D. 2009. ‘Strengthening International Regulation through Transnational New Governance: Overcoming the Orchestration Deficit’. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42, 501–578.Google Scholar
Alvarez, J. 2006. International Organizations as Law-Makers. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnason, R. 2011. ‘Loss of Economic Rents in the Global Fishery’. Journal of Bioeconomics 13, 213–232.Google Scholar
Attard, D. 1987. The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. & Black, J. 2008. ‘Really Responsive Regulation’. Modern Law Review, 71(1), 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, R., Cave, M. & Lodge, M. 2011. Understanding Regulation. Theory, Strategy and Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangert, K. 1999. ‘The Effective Enforcement of High Seas Fishing Regimes: The Case of the Convention for the Regulation of the Policing of the North Sea Fisheries of 6 May 1882’. In Goodwin-Gill, G. S. & Talmon, S. (eds.), The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1–20.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. 2009. Property Rights and Natural Resources. Oxford, Hart.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. 2010. ‘Entitlement to Marine Living Resources in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’. In Oude Elferink, A. G. & Molenaar, E. J. (eds.), The International Legal Regime of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Current and Future Developments. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 83–141.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. 2012. Pathways to strengthen rights based management programs with a “high seas” component in the context of internationally managed tuna stocks, Report commissioned by the WWF.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. 2016a. ‘The Proposed LOSC Implementation Agreement on Areas beyond National Jurisdiction and Its Impact on International Fisheries Law’. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 31(4), 583–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R. 2016b. ‘The Continuing Vitality of UNCLOS’. In Barrett, J. & Barnes, R. (eds.), The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Living Instrument. London, BIICL, 459–489.Google Scholar
Bothe, M. & Sand, P. H. (eds.). 2003. Environmental Policy: From Regulation to Economic Instruments. Leiden/Boston, Brill/Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Boyle, A., 2006. ‘Further Development of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea’. In Freestone, D., Barnes, R. & Ong, D. (eds.), Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 40–62.Google Scholar
Caminos, H. & Molitor, M. 1985. ‘Progressive Development of International Law and the Package Deal’. American Journal of International Law 79(4), 871–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christy, F. T. Jr. & Scott, A. D. 1965. The Common Wealth of Ocean Fisheries. Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Churchill, R. R. 2012. ‘The Persisting Problem of Non-Compliance with the Law of the Sea Convention: Disorder in the Oceans’. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 27(4), 813–820.Google Scholar
COFI. 2014. Report on Progress in the Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and Related Instruments, COFI/2014/INnf.15/Rev 1. Available at: www.fao.org/3/a-mk051e.pdf.Google Scholar
FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome, FAO.Google Scholar
FAO. 2009. Guidelines for the Eco-Labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries. Revision 1. Rome, FAO.Google Scholar
FAO. 2003. Report of the Expert Consultation on Identifying, Assessing and Reporting on Subsidies in the Fishing Industry - Rome, 3–6 December 2002. FAO Fisheries Report No. 698. Rome, FAO.Google Scholar
FAO. 1997. Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 4. Rome, FAO.Google Scholar
Garcia, S. M. & Rosenberg, A. A. 2010. ‘Food Security and Marine Capture Fisheries: Characteristics, Trends, Drivers and Future Perspectives’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365, 2869–2880.Google Scholar
Gardiner, R., Ostrom, E. & Walker, J. W. 1990. ‘The Nature of Common-Pool Resource Problems’, Rationality and Society 2(3), 335–358.Google Scholar
Gordon, H. S. 1954. ‘The Economic Theory of a Common Property Resources: The Fishery’. Journal of Political Economy 62(2), 124–142.Google Scholar
Grafton, Q. R. et al. (eds.). 2010. Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. 2012. ‘Dynamic Governance Interactions: Evolutionary Effects of State Responses to Non-State Certification Programs’. Regulation & Governance 8(1), 74–92.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N. & Grabosky, P. (eds.). 1998. Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. 1999. ‘Regulatory Pluralism: Designing Policy Mixes for Environmental Protection’. Law & Policy 21(1),49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, A. T. 2002. ‘A Compliance-Based Theory of International Law’. California Law Review 90(6), 1823–1887.Google Scholar
Hatcher, A. 2004. ‘Incentives for Investment in IUU Fishing Capacity’. In Gray, K., Legg, F. & Andrews-Chouicha, E. (eds.), Fish Piracy: Combatting Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Paris, OECD, 239–254.Google Scholar
Havice, E. 2013. ‘Rights-Based Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishery: Economic and Environmental Change under the Vessels Day Scheme’. Marine Policy 42, 259–267.Google Scholar
Hoel, A. H. 2010. ‘Performance Reviews of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations’. In Russel, D. A. & VanderZwaag, D. L. (eds.), Recasting Transboundary Fisheries Management Arrangements in Light of Sustainability Principles. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 449–472.Google Scholar
Hollis, D. 2005. ‘Why State Consent Still Matters – Non-State Actors, Treaties, and the Changing Sources of International Law’. Berkeley Journal of International Law 23(1), 137–174.Google Scholar
Homans, F. & Wilen, J. 2005. ‘Markets and Rent Dissipation in Regulated Open Access Fisheries’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49(2), 381–404.Google Scholar
Hosch, G. 2009. Analysis of the Implementation and Impact of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries since 1995. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular, No. 1038. Rome, FAO, 75–79.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. 2004. ‘(Not so) “Smart Regulation?” Canadian Shellfish Aquaculture Policy and the Evolution of Instrument Choice for Industrial Development’. Marine Policy 28(2), 171–184.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. 2007. ‘Designing Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in “New Governance Arrangements”’. Policy and Society 26(4), 1–18.Google Scholar
Howlett, M., Vince, J. & del Rio, P. 2017. ‘Policy Integration and Multi-Level Governance: Dealing with the Vertical Dimension of Policy Mix Designs’. Politics and Governance 5(2), 69–78.Google Scholar
Innis, H. A. 1940. The Cod Fisheries: The History of an International Economy. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
ISSF. 2011. The Cordoba Conference on the Allocation of Property Rights in Global Tuna Fisheries. Washington, DC, International Seafood Sustainability Foundation.Google Scholar
ISSF. 2010. Bellagio Framework for Sustainable Tuna Fisheries: Capacity controls, rights-based management, and effective MCS. Washington, DC, International Seafood Sustainability Foundation.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. 1955–56. ‘The Effect of Resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations’. British Yearbook of International Law. 32, 97–122.Google Scholar
Kwiatkowska, B. 1989. The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea. Dordrecht, Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Leal, D. R. (ed.). 2005. Evolving Property Rights in Marine Fisheries. Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Lodge, M.W. et al. 2007. Recommended Best Practices for Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. London, Chatham House.Google Scholar
Lowe, V. 2007. International Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Molenaar, E. J. 2005. ‘Addressing Regulatory Gaps in High Seas Fisheries’. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 20(3), 533–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neher, P.A., Arnason, R. & Mollett, N. 1989. Rights Based Fishing. Dordrecht, Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. & Walker, J. 1994. Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Papanicolopulu, I. 2012. ‘The Law of the Sea Convention: No Place for Persons?’. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 27(4), 867–874.Google Scholar
Scott, A. 2008. The Evolution of Resource Property Rights. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Serdy, A. 2016. The New Entrants Problem in International Fisheries Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Serdy, A. 2007. ‘Trading of Fishery Commission Quota under International Law’. Ocean Yearbook, 21(1), 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T. 1994. Scaling Fisheries: The Science of Measuring the Effects. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. B. 2008. ‘Instrument Choice’. In Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 147–181.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y. 2008. A Dual Approach to Oceans Governance: The Cases of Zonal and Integrated Management in International Law of the Sea. Abingdon, Routledge.Google Scholar
Techera, E.J. & Klein, N. 2017. International Law of Sharks: Obstacles, Options and Opportunities. Leiden, Brill.Google Scholar
Trachtman, J. 2016. ‘The Growing Obsolescence of Customary International Law’. In Bradley, C. (ed.), Custom’s Future: International Law in a Changing World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 172–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Burgt, N. 2013. The Contribution of International Fisheries Law to Human Development. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
van Gossum, P., Arts, B. & Verheyen, K. 2010. ‘From “Smart Regulation” to “Regulatory Arrangements”’. Policy and Science 43(3), 245–261.Google Scholar
Washington, S. & Ababouch, L. 2011. Private Standards and Certification in Fisheries and Aquaculture: Current Practice and Emerging Issues. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 553, Rome, FAO,Google Scholar
Wiener, J.B. 1999. ‘Global Environmental Regulation: Instrument Choice in Legal Context’. Yale Law Journal 108, 677–800.Google Scholar
WWF. 2012. Rights-Based Management: Conserving Fisheries, Protecting Economies. Washington, DC, WWF, Available at: wwf.be/assets/RAPPORT-POLICY/OCEANS/UK/WWF-RightManagement-brochure-final.pdf.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×