Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:22:27.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute Revisited: How Far Have We Come?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2014

Howard S. Schiffman  and
Briony Patricia MacPhee
Howard S. Schiffman
Affiliation:
New York University, Environmental Studies Program, New York, NY (United States). Email: howard.schiffman@nyu.edu.
Briony Patricia MacPhee
Affiliation:
Independent scholar, New York, NY (United States). Email: bpm239@nyu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Southern Bluefin Tuna dispute of the late 1990s will long be remembered as one of the most important fishery disputes of all time, influencing both ocean governance and international dispute settlement. This commentary explores the legacy of that dispute with a particular emphasis on the growth and development of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna and how the regime is functioning with the addition of several new members. We will focus also on the specific challenges to the conservation and management of the southern bluefin tuna. This includes biological parameters and the legal and political landscape of global fisheries conservation generally. Finally, we will explore emerging conservation strategies to assist the recovery of this highly valuable fish species.

Keywords

Southern Bluefin TunaCommission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO)Fisheries Conservation and ManagementFisheries DisputeInternational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)
Type
Commentary
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , October 2014 , pp. 391 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

1 Canberra (Australia), 10 May 1993, in force 20 May 1994 (SBT Convention), available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/userfiles/file/docs_english/basic_documents/convention.pdf.

2 Montego Bay (Jamaica), 10 Dec. 1982, in force 16 Nov. 1994, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_agreements.htm.

3 See, e.g., Oxman, B.H., ‘Complementary Agreements and Compulsory Jurisdiction’ (2001) 95(2) American Journal of International Law, pp. 277–312Google Scholar; Colson, D.A. & Hoyle, P., ‘Satisfying the Procedural Prerequisites to the Compulsory Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: Did the Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal Get it Right?’(2003) 34(1) Ocean Development and International Law, pp. 59–82Google Scholar; Kwiatkowska, B., ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Tribunal Did Get it Right: A Commentary and Reply to the Article by David A. Colson and Dr. Peggy Hoyle’ (2003) 34(3–4) Ocean Development and International Law, pp. 269–395.Google Scholar

4 CCSBT, ‘About the Southern Bluefin Tuna’, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/site/about_bluefin_tuna.php.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Romano, C., ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute: Hints of a World to Come … Like It or Not’ (2001) 32(4) Ocean Development & International Law, pp. 313–48, at 315.Google Scholar

8 CCSBT, n. 4 above.

9 Ibid. To better understand the complexities of SBT breeding, see Farley, J.H. & Davis, T.L.O., ‘Reproductive Dynamics of Southern Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus Maccoyii’ (1998) 96 Fishery Bulletin, pp. 223–36.Google Scholar

10 Government of Australia Department of the Environment, ‘Southern Bluefin Tuna: Thunnus Maccoyii’, available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=69402 (Thunnus Maccoyii).

11 Ibid.

12 CCSBT, Report of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Commission, 20–23 Oct. 2009, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/userfiles/file/docs_english/meetings/meeting_reports/ccsbt_16/report_of_CCSBT16.pdf.

13 Thunnus Maccoyii, n. 10 above; see also Romano, n. 7 above, at p. 315.

14 CCSBT, n. 12 above.

15 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Southern Bluefin Tuna (Background Report for OECD, Rebuilding Fisheries: The Way Forward (OECD, 2012), at p. 2, available at: http://www.oecd.org/tad/fisheries/Southern%20Bluefin%20tuna.pdf.

16 Ibid.

17 Romano, n. 7 above, at p. 315.

18 Marine Education Society of Australia (MESA), ‘Southern Bluefin Tuna, Mariculture in South Australia’, available at: http://www.mesa.edu.au/aquaculture/aquaculture23.asp.

19 BBC News Asia, ‘Japan Bluefin Tuna Fetches Record $1.7m’, BBC News, 5 Jan. 2013, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20919306.

20 Foster, M., ‘Bluefin Tuna Sells for Incredible Record $1.76 Million at Tokyo Fish Auction’, Huffington Post – Food, 4 Jan. 2013, available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/05/bluefin-tuna-sells-for-incredible-record-tokyo-fish-auction_n_2415722.html.Google Scholar

21 BBC News Asia, n. 19 above.

22 Foster, n. 20 above.

23 CCSBT, ‘About the Southern Bluefin Tuna’, n. 4 above.

24 CCSBT, ‘Origins of the Convention’, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/site/origins_of_the_convention.php.

25 N. 1 above.

26 SBT Convention, n. 1 above, Art. 17.

27 For a discussion of the decision-making procedures of various RFMOs, see Schiffman, H.S., Marine Conservation Agreements: The Law and Policy of Reservations and Vetoes (Martinus Nijhoff/Brill, 2008).Google Scholar

28 SBT Convention, n. 1 above, Art. 7.

29 For a detailed discussion of decision-making within the CCSBT, see Schiffman, n. 27 above, at pp. 119–26.

30 SBT Convention, n. 1 above, Art. 18.

31 Ibid., Art. 8(4).

32 Ibid., Art. 9.

33 Ibid., Art. 9(5)(a).

34 CCSBT, ‘Origins of the Convention’, n. 24 above.

35 CCSBT, ‘Resolution to Establish an Extended Commission and an Extended Scientific Committee’, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/userfiles/file/docs_english/basic_documents/the%20Extended%20Commission.pdf.

36 CCSBT, ‘Origins of the Convention’, n. 24 above.

37 CCSBT, ‘Resolution to Establish an Extended Commission’, n. 35 above, Preamble; see also OECD, n. 15 above, at p. 2.

38 CCSBT, ‘Report of the Extended Commission of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Commission’, 1–4 Oct. 2012, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/userfiles/file/docs_english/meetings/meeting_reports/ccsbt_19/report_of_CCSBT19.pdf.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid., Attachment 14, at para. 1.

41 SBT Convention, n. 1 above, Art. 9(1)(2).

42 CCSBT, ‘SBT 1998 Peer Review Panel’, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/userfiles/file/docs_english/operational_resolutions/report_of_the_1998_peer_review_panel.pdf.

43 CCSBT, ‘Role of the Independent Chair’, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/site/stock_assessment.php.

44 OECD, n. 15 above, at p. 5.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 CCSBT, Resolution on the Adoption of a Management Procedure, adopted at the 18th Annual Meeting, 10–13 Oct. 2011, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/userfiles/file/docs_english/operational_resolutions/Resolution_Management_Procedure.pdf.

48 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, New York, NY (US), 4 Aug. 1995, in force 11 Dec. 2001, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm.

49 Ibid., Art. 5(b).

50 SBT Convention, n. 1 above, Art. 4(a).

51 OECD, n. 15 above, at p. 2.

52 Ibid.

53 Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 Aug. 2000, paras. 22, 24 (SBT Award), available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=ICSIDPublicationsRH=actionVal=ViewAnnouncePDF=AnnouncementType=archive=AnnounceNo=7_10.pdf.

54 Ibid., at para. 24.

55 Ibid., at para. 25.

56 For a detailed discussion of the SBT Dispute, the positions of the parties and the result of the dispute settlement process, see Schiffman, H.S., ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Case: ITLOS Hears Its First Fishery Dispute’ (1999) 2(3) Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, pp. 318–33Google Scholar; Schiffman, H.S., ‘UNCLOS and Marine Wildlife Disputes: Big Splash or Barely a Ripple?’ (2001) 4(3) Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, pp. 257–78Google Scholar, at 271–6. For a political and economic analysis of the dispute, including the positions of the parties, see Sato, Y., ‘Fishy Business: A Political-Economic Analysis of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute’ (2002) 28(4) Asian Affairs: An American Review, pp. 217–37.Google Scholar

57 See, e.g., Colson & Hoyle, n. 3 above.

58 ITLOS, The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Order, 3 Dec. 2001, available at: http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_10/Order.03.12.01.E.pdf.

59 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, Paris (France), 22 Sept. 1992, in force 25 Mar. 1998, available at: http://www.ospar.org.

60 All information on TAC allocations has been accessed and reproduced from CCSBT, ‘Total Allowable Catch’, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/site/total_allowable_catch.php.

61 Romano, n. 7 above, at p. 315.

62 Ibid., at p. 315.

63 CCSBT, n. 60 above.

64 South Africa was not able to inform the meeting of the likelihood and/or timing of its possible accession: CCSBT, ‘SBT 1998 Peer Review Panel’, n. 42 above.

65 CCSBT, ‘Origins of the Convention’, n. 24 above.

66 CCSBT, ‘Resolution on the Adoption of a Management Procedure’, n. 47 above.

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid.

71 A Report Review of the Tuna RFMOs: CCSBT, IATTC, IOTC, ICCAT and WCPFB, compiled by AZTI Tecnalia 1, available at: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/7779673/a-report-review-of-the-tuna-rfmos-ccsbt-iattc-iotc-txotx.

72 CCSBT, ‘Resolution on the Adoption of a Management Procedure’, n. 47 above.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid. For a review of the path to the development of the MP, and some of the challenges to its implementation, see Kurota, H. et al. ., ‘Developing a Management Procedure Robust to Uncertainty for Southern Bluefin Tuna: A Somewhat Frustrating Struggle to Bridge the Gap Between Ideals and Reality’ (2010) 52 Population Ecology, pp. 359–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kolody, D. et al. ., ‘Salvaged Pearls: Lessons Learned from a Floundering Attempt to Develop a Management Procedure for Southern Bluefin Tuna’ (2008) 94(3) Fisheries Research, pp. 339–50.Google Scholar

76 CCSBT, ‘SBT 1998 Peer Review Panel’, n. 42 above.

77 CCSBT, ‘Ecologically Related Species’, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/site/related_species.php.

78 CCSBT, ‘Recommendation to Mitigate the Impact on Ecologically Related Species of Fishing for Southern Bluefin Tuna’, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/userfiles/file/docs_english/operational_resolutions/Recommendation_ERS.pdf.

79 UNCLOS, n. 2 above, Art. 119(1)(b).

80 CCSBT, ‘Terms of Reference for the Working Group on Ecologically Related Species’, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/userfiles/file/docs_english/basic_documents/terms_of_reference_for_subsidiary_bodies.pdf.

81 CCSBT, Report of the 10th Meeting of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group, 28–31 Aug. 2013, available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/userfiles/file/docs_english/meetings/meeting_reports/ccsbt_20/report_of_ERSWG10.pdf.

82 Washington, DC (US), 3 Mar. 1973, in force 1 July 1975, available at: http//:www.cites.org. See R. Black, ‘Bluefin Tuna Ban Proposal Meets Rejection’, BBC News, 18 Mar. 2010, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8574775.stm (noting the failure of CITES to list the Atlantic bluefin for protection).

83 See Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch, available at: http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx?c=dd.

84 J. Jacquet et al., ‘Conserving Wild Fish in a Sea of Market-based Efforts’ (2009) 44(1) Oryx, pp. 45–56.

85 ‘Bluefin Tuna Boycott Popular, Australia Protects Southern Bluefin’, Environmental News Service, 9 Dec. 2010, available at: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2010/2010-12-09-03.html.

86 See Chkanikova, O. & Mont, O., ‘Corporate Supply Chain Responsibility: Drivers and Barriers for Sustainable Food Retailing’ (2012) Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, FirstView online publication, doi: 10.1002/csr.1316Google Scholar; see also Killian, S., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (2012) 44(5) Accountancy Ireland, pp. 30–1.Google Scholar

87 N. 48 above.

88 Adopted by the FAO Ministerial Meeting on Fisheries, 10–11 Mar. 1999, Rome (Italy), available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/v9878e/v9878e00.pdf.

89 Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/003/x3130m/X3130E00.htm.

90 See, e.g., OECD, Strengthening Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (OECD, 2009), available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/strengthening-regional-fisheries-management-organisations_9789264073326-en.