70 



In addition, the use of the words "long term" with sustainability may undercut 

 the concept by allowing an inference that unsustainable fishing is permissible for 

 a short period. Instead, states should be required to adopt measures that ensure 

 continuous long term sustainability. 



Finally, states should be required to adopt conservation measures to ensure the 

 sustainability of not only the target species out also species dependent on or associ- 

 ated with target species. 



2. Overcapacity 



The text contains important language requiring States to take measures to deal 

 with overfishing and overcapacity. This language should be strengthened by requir- 

 ing states to take effective measures, including ensuring that fishing capacity does 

 not exceed the capacity required to catch total allowable catches and quotas. If a 

 fishery is overcapitalized, states should be required to take steps to retire excess 

 vessels. 



3. Assessment of fishing activities 



The text requires that States continuously assess and review fishing activities 

 which may have adverse effects on the conservation of straddling fish stocks and 

 highly migratory fish populations. This requirement should be extended to associ- 

 ated and dependent species. 



4. Associated and dependent species 



Section 3(c) of the text requires states to take into consideration effects on non- 

 target species with a view to maintaining or restoring populations "above levels at 

 which their reproduction may become seriously threatened." while we recognize this 

 standard comes from the Convention, we believe it is ambiguous and could allow 

 very serious harm to associated and dependent species. At a minimum, the word 

 "seriously" should be removed. 



C. Compatibility 



The issue of compatibility between management measures adopted by a coastal 

 state and those adopted for the same population in international waters is a key 

 obstacle to reaching agreement. Coastal states desire assurances that measures 

 adopted for the high seas will be at least as stringent as those adopted by the coast- 

 al state for the same population. Distant water fishing nations argue that the re- 

 verse should also apply — that measures adopted for coastal states be at least as 

 stringent as those adopted for the high seas. 



We believe the most stringent measures that provide the greatest assurance of 

 long term, continuous sustainability for both target and non-target species should 

 apply throughout the range of the population in question. If the coastal state has 

 adopted more protective measures than those adopted for the adjacent high seas, 

 then the coastal state measures should apply throughout the range, and vice versa. 

 In no case should a coastal state or a regional management organization be prohib- 

 ited from taking stricter measures as necessary to protect target and non-target spe- 

 cies. 



D. Regional Management Organizations and Arrangements 



Section IV on international cooperation contains very important provisions that 

 will improve the way straddling and highly migratory fish are managed. For exam- 

 ple, where no regional management arrangement exists, the negotiating text would 

 require states to cooperate to develop conservation and management measures to 

 ensure the continuous long term sustainability of the target fish populations and to 

 preserve the marine environment which supports them. For new and existing re- 

 gional management organizations, states fishing in a region must participate and 

 must agree on conservation and management measures. The text denies access to 

 states that neither participate nor cooperate, prohibits vessels of non-parties from 

 fishing in a manner contrary to conservation and management measures agreed to 

 by regional management organizations, and authorizes states participating to take 

 measures consistent with international law which they deem necessary to deter 

 such activities.4 



Our major complaint with this section of the text is the weak provisions requiring 

 transparency. The text only provides NGOs the opportunity to participate in meet- 

 ings in accordance with the terms and conditions for participation agreed upon by 

 the regional management organization concerned." Since some organizations' terms 

 and conditions allow NGOs to be excluded, this provision will do Httle or nothing 



< These measures will buttress the recently negotiated flagging agreement, which prohibits 

 some vessels from ixflagging to avoid conservation measures. 



