Ending inequity: Reducing disproportionate burdens in tuna fisheries

Conserving and sustainably managing living marine resources can impact States that have an interest in the fishery. The higher the dependence of the State on the resources, the larger the impact. For example, Pacific Island States rely heavily on tuna resources for livelihoods, income, and food security and many have few other alternative industries that would support the interests of these States. Hence, any conservation measure that restricts access to fisheries would heavily impact Pacific Island States. In comparison, such a measure would have less of an impact on a State that has a well-developed and diverse economy. In this scenario, Pacific Island States are carrying a disproportionate burden. This does not mean that developing States should not carry any burden. However, developed fishing nations have so far benefited the most from the exploited natural resources and are also the most responsible for the degradation of these resources. Hence, under international agreements, such as the 1992 Rio Convention, developed states are required to carry a proportionally bigger burden than developed states.

The concept of disproportionate conservation burden was enshrined in the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), a key international treaty that provides a framework for the management of highly migratory (e.g., tuna species) and straddling fish stocks (e.g., squid, jack mackerel, etc). UNFSA calls out to all states to acknowledge the special interests of developing states and to ensure that conservation and management measures do not result in a disproportionate burden for developing states. Furthermore, UNFSA strengthens regional cooperation of states, that have an interest in the respective fishery, through regional fisheries management organisations (RMFOs). These RFMOs provide a platform for states to work together and sustainably manage their fisheries. However, despite the requirements under the UNFSA and the fact that many RFMOs have a high number of developing state members, members of RMFOs are failing to avoid placing a disproportionate burden on developing states.

While researchers such as Sinan et al. (2021) and Azmi et al. (2016) developed different frameworks for quantifying disproportionate burdens, less attention has been paid to procedural components – who conducts these disproportionate burden assessments within RFMOs and who makes the final decision of whether a new conservation and management measure places a disproportionate burden on developing states. Our newly published paper aims to address these questions. By using a ‘policy analysis’, a method that is commonly used by policymakers but less so by researchers, we developed a policy pathway that would allow members of tuna RFMOs to share the conservation burden more equitably.

We developed seven policy options, that together, form a policy pathway that has the potential to reduce the disproportionate burden carried by developing states and would consequently make fisheries management more equitable and transparent. In our paper, we describe each policy option and assess its effectiveness in reducing disproportionate burdens, costs, political feasibility, and implementation feasibility. For example, the option of appointing an equity officer within the secretariat of the tuna RFMO, who would assess if a proposal would result in a disproportionate burden or not, would be highly effective, but probably not very feasible from a political point of view. Furthermore, some of the described policy options are mutually exclusive. For example, if members of a tuna RFMO decide to hire an equity officer as part of the secretariat, there is no need to appoint an independent equity assessment consultant or to establish a disproportionate burden working group. Overall, each combination of the presented policy options would be an important step towards reducing the conservation burden carried by developing states.  

While it is important to ensure that developing States are not carrying a disproportionate burden, some conservation and management measures need to be applied by all tuna RFMO members. For example, management measures related to data reporting have to be applied by all to be effective and enable effective science and management. Nevertheless, developing States might still require support for collecting data and ensuring effective implementation.

In summary, developing States continue to carry a disproportionate burden despite the explicit requirement in the United Nations Fish Stock Agreement to avoid applying a disproportionate burden on developing States. Our paper provides tools for members of tuna RFMOs to change this, and to stop placing a disproportionate conservation burden on developing states and ensure that fisheries are not only sustainably managed but also equitably.