Next Article in Journal
Emotional Strengths and Difficulties in Italian Adolescents: Analysis of Adaptation through the SDQ
Next Article in Special Issue
Industrial Support of the Energy Projects as a Part of the Blue Economy Development in the Arctic
Previous Article in Journal
Revealing the Chemical Profiles of Airborne Particulate Matter Sources in Lake Baikal Area: A Combination of Three Techniques
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/su14106171
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Practice of Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries on the High Seas: Challenges and Suggestions

by
Limin Dong
* and
Peiqing Guo
School of International Affairs and Public Administration, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(10), 6171; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106171
Submission received: 12 March 2022 / Revised: 29 April 2022 / Accepted: 17 May 2022 / Published: 19 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Blue Economy: A New Transition towards Human Wellbeing, Social Equity and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Since the 1990s, the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) has developed rapidly and become an important method of high seas fishery management. The EAF has already been practiced by many Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. The practice of the approach in the management of high seas fisheries faces numerous challenges, such as constraints by the approach, increasing stakeholders affecting the implementation of the EAF, inconsistency with political ocean boundaries, resistance from vested interests, and the threat of Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated fishing. In order to deal with the dilemma faced by EAF, ideas are proposed as follows, building a sense of maritime community with a shared future, advancing the approach by explicating definition, objectives, and priorities, strengthening coordination and cooperation between the states and regional fisheries organizations, adopting area-based management tools with biogeographical criteria, and enhancing the level of stakeholders’ participation.

1. Introduction

Fishery resources are important for hundreds of millions of people in the world. However, it has been facing serious threats in recent decades. In fact, Sustainable fisheries have already become a topic of concern. At the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015, member states committed to conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas, and marine resources. Conservation and management measures, such as the precautionary approach, have already been developed. However, due to the lack of consideration of the ecosystem, the traditional single-species management approach has not effectively avoided the depletion of fishery resources. Scientists have reminded that if ecosystem-based fisheries management were not implemented, the global fishery resources might collapse around 2048 [1]. Therefore, Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) has gradually received attention.
High seas are those areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction and comprise almost two-thirds of the global ocean [2]. The high seas fisheries, which provide 4.2% of the annual marine catch, play a significant role in global food security [3]. In order to achieve and maintain sustainable fisheries on the high seas, EAF has been adopted by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). Along with the approach’s implementation, more and more challenges have also arisen. Thus, this article studied the practice of the EAF on the high seas, focusing on the challenges faced by the approach and proposing ideas to meet with them.
EAF has been drawn widely discussed in recent years. The concept, core elements, and objective of the approach are important research topics. Pikitch et al. pointed out that the objective of ecosystem-based fisheries management is to sustain healthy marine ecosystems and the fisheries they support. It requires evolution from single-species management to integrated ecosystem-based fishery management plans [4]. Joji Morishita classified EAF into four identifiable types, namely by-catch mitigation, multispecies management, protection of vulnerable ecosystems, and the integrated approach [5]. Comparative assessments between EAF and other related concepts have been conducted by researchers. Arie Trouwborst explored that the scope of the precautionary approach is wider than EAF [6]. Trine Skovgaard Kirkfeldt found out that although the main perceptions among EAF, ecosystem-based management (EBM), and the ecosystem approach (EA) are overlapping, there are still huge disagreements on how these concepts are related. A lack of clear understanding of these concepts raises confusion. The implementation of the EAF has also attracted attention from scholars. Serge Garcia and Kevern Cochrane believed that EAF represents the only opportunity for fisheries to become responsible and sustainable. However, the approach is still in its very first stages of implementation [7]. James H. Cowan Jr. et al. found that political interference in fisheries management is a big challenge for the adoption of EAF. They suggested that viewing the approach only as an emergent property of innovation in science and policy is an effective way to counter the issue [8]. Another significant topic is the practice of EAF on high seas [9]. In particular, the implementation of the approach by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources under climate change has been deeply discussed. Scholars encouraged the Commission to use Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s assessments and reshape its management measures to address climate-driven changes [10,11,12].
To sum up, although existing research has made valuable contributions to the current study, further research is needed to promote the practice of EAF on the high seas. First, EAF is a new conservation and management measure still under development. The literature on implementation challenges faced by the approach regarding high seas needs updating and expanding. Second, a number of researches on EAF’s practice on the high seas are discussed from one or another aspect and lack of comprehensive analysis of the challenges. Therefore, this article conducts integrated and detailed research on the practice and identifies five implementation challenges of EAF on the high seas. Based on this, the authors propose ideas to meet these difficulties.

2. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

Although the EAF has been developed for many years, scholars have not reached a widely recognized concept [13]. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), “EAF takes its focus in fisheries management but broadens the perspective beyond seeing a fishery as simply ‘fish in the sea, people in boats’, beyond consideration only of commercially important species, and beyond management efforts directed solely at the fish harvesting process. EAF requires the inclusion of interactions between the core of the fishery—fish and fishers—as well as other elements of the ecosystem and the human system relevant to management. The purpose of an EAF is to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by the aquatic ecosystems” [14]. The difference between EAF and the traditional fishery management method is that although the impact of fishing activities on related or dependent species is considered, the latter still mainly focuses on the target species.
The complexity involved in EAF implies that it is difficult to define a clear implementation measure. The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has pointed out that the ecosystem approach remains a useful normative framework for bringing together social, economic, cultural, and environmental values. “One-size-fits-all” solutions for the ecosystem approach are neither feasible nor desirable [15]. Nevertheless, after years of practice and development, the EAF has gradually formed some representative measures (Table 1).
EAF focuses on the impact of fisheries on target species, associated or dependent species, and ecosystems. The approach requires the prohibition or strict control of destructive fishing gear to reduce the impact of fishing activities on associated or dependent species. Measures are implemented to prevent or reduce the by-catch [16].
The approach also aims at controlling bottom fishing and protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs). In addition, identifying ecosystem units and protecting marine ecosystems through the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) or other area-based management tools are key measures [17,18]. Scholars have proposed dividing marine areas based on biogeographic criteria and identifying VMEs, species, and habitats that need special protection.

3. The Practice of EAF in High Seas Fishery Management

In the global high seas fishery governance, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations play a key role. With the development of the EAF, it has become a new trend in fisheries management and has received the attention and application of many RFMOs.

3.1. CCAMLR Plays a Leading Role in EAF Practicing

Among the RFMOs, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) recognized the role of the EAF very early and has been playing a leading role in the practice of the approach [19]. In accordance with the requirements of the EAF, CCAMLR not only pays attention to target species but also commits to maintaining the ecological relationships between harvested, dependent, and related populations of Antarctic marine living resources [20]. The measures taken by the Commission are mainly reflected in the conservation and management of finfish and krill and the establishment of MPAs.
Basically, CCAMLR’s approach to managing the krill fishery is to minimize the impact on the ecosystem rather than trying to maximize the size of the fishery [21]. The Commission has implemented the Ecosystem Monitoring Program (CEMP), which aims to monitor the impact of commercial fisheries on associated or dependent species and ecosystems, collect data on by-catch, and record significant changes in the marine ecosystem [22]. The CEMP serves as a basis for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. CCAMLR has also formulated strict fishing gear restrictions to reduce by-catches and made conservation measures on the time, area, and method of fishing activities [23]. Since 1991 and 1993, the Commission has required prior notification and data collection for new fisheries and exploratory fisheries to prevent overexploitation [24,25].
Protection of VMEs and MPAs are also significant measures for the Commission to implement the EAF. CCAMLR has identified more than 50 vulnerable marine ecosystems (Figure 1a). In order to reduce the impact of bottom fishing on these VMEs, the Commission has specially formulated protection measures, including monitor and control of bottom fishing activities, providing guidelines for information to be submitted when evidence of VMEs has been encountered, and data collection [26]. The Commission has already established two MPAs (Figure 1b), the South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area (SOISS MPA) and the Ross Sea Region Marine Protected Area (RSR MPA). SOISS MPA includes overlapping bioregions and important areas for penguin foraging. RSR MPA is identified for protecting large-scale ecosystem processes and conserving biodiversity. Fishing activities are prohibited in many of the two MPAs, with only a few exceptions [27,28].

3.2. The Practice of EAF by Other RFMOs

Many other RFMOs, such as North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO), Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), etc., have also played a considerable role in practicing and developing the approach. All of them emphasize the importance of ensuring the long-term conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources and are committed to safeguarding marine ecosystems.
With regard to this, they have embraced the EAF. According to the NEAFC Convention, the Commission shall take due account of the impact of fisheries on other species and marine ecosystems, adopt conservation and management measures to minimize harmful impacts on living marine resources and marine ecosystems, and take due account of the need to conserve marine biological diversity [29]. NAFO emphasizes that it will apply the EAF in Northwest Atlantic, which includes safeguarding the marine environment, conserving its marine biodiversity, minimizing the risk of long-term or irreversible adverse effects of fishing activities, and taking account of the relationship between all components of the ecosystem [30]. SEAFO requires state parties to take account of the impact of fishing operations on ecologically related species and adopt conservation and management measures for species belonging to the same ecosystem. It is committed to minimizing harmful impacts on living marine resources as a whole and protecting marine biodiversity [31]. The protection of biodiversity in the marine environment, assessing the impacts of fishing, other human activities, and environmental factors on target stocks, non-target species, and species belonging to the same ecosystem or ones that are dependent upon or associated with the target stocks, and adopting measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of highly migratory fish stocks, are also significant goals for the WCPFC [32].
Specific measures have been adopted by these RFMOs (Table 2). NEAFC has introduced measures for reducing by-catch and protecting VMEs and habitats. It strictly manages fishing gear to reduce by-catch. Gillnets, entangling nets, and trammel nets are prohibited in waters below 200 m before corresponding control measures are developed [33]. In order to reduce the impact of bottom fishing and protect VMEs and habitats, the Commission has identified 13 areas and prohibited bottom fishing in these areas [34]. In addition, it has also formulated cold-water coral conservation and management measures, including prohibiting the use of bottom set gillnets and longline fishing in designated areas [35]. The establishment of MPAs through cooperation with the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) Commission is also an important measure for the Commission to implement the EAF. In 2008, they signed a memorandum of strengthening cooperation in protecting marine biodiversity [36]. Up to now, the OSPAR Commission has established seven MPAs on the high seas of the Northeast Atlantic based on biogeographic criteria [37].
NAFO is committed to preserving marine biological diversity, minimizing pollution and waste originating from fishing vessels, as well as minimizing discards, catch from lost or abandoned gear, catch of species not subject to a directed fishery, and the impacts on associated or dependent species, in particular, endangered species. The Commission also implements the EAF based on scientific research, including assessing the impact of fishing activities and other human activities on living resources and their ecosystems [38]. The Scientific Council of the Commission established a working group on EAF and published a report entitled the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Roadmap for the development and implementation of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. It established the general framework for implementing EAF in NAFO.
In order to implement the roadmap, the Commission has identified three nested spatial scales, bioregion, Ecosystem Production Unit (EPU), and ecoregion, based on physiographic, oceanographic, and biotic variables. They have been used as the basis for formulating conservation and management measures [39]. The Commission has also employed a wide range of analytical methods to define and understand the ecosystem, such as fishery production potential models, aggregate-species surplus production models, multispecies production models, etc. Moreover, current management and assessment tools are used to develop suitable types of output [40]. The Commission tried to determine the total allowable catch based on the ecosystem model, and its preliminary results have been used to determine the total allowable catch (TAC) of some populations [41]. Furthermore, 20 VMEs have been identified, and protection measures such as the prohibition of bottom fishing and the evaluation of the impact of fishing activities on the benthic community are adopted [42].
SEAFO has taken measures toward assessing and addressing the impacts of fishing on the ecosystem, incorporating environmental factors affecting marine ecosystems. It has identified VMEs within the Convention area and adopted measures, including setting up closed areas and restricting bottom trawling [43]. In addition, the organization has taken measures to reduce the by-catch of seabirds and turtles [44]. WCPFC also assesses and addresses the impact of fisheries on ecosystems, including associated or dependent species. It incorporates economic, social, and cultural aspects in data collection. Over 50 conservation and management measures have been adopted, such as reducing by-catch, banning large drifting gillnet, and preventing marine pollution. It has also implemented various control and surveillance activities, such as a regional observer program, regional fishing vessel registry, vessel monitoring system, high seas boarding and inspection, and others [45].

4. Challenges with Practicing the EAF in High Seas Fishery Management

As a new approach, the EAF has been valued by RFMOs and adopted in high seas fishery management. However, the approach still faces challenges, such as constraints by the approach itself, increasing stakeholders affecting the implementation of the EAF, inconsistency with political ocean boundaries, resistance from vested interests, and the threat of Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated (IUU) fishing (Table 3).

4.1. Constraints by the Approach Itself

Although the EAF has been applied to the practice in high seas fishery management, the limitations of the approach still have a negative impact on its practice and development.
Well-defined concepts, objectives, indicators, and reference points are prerequisites for a successful implementation of the EAF. However, a lack of clear definition, objectives, and insufficient practical guidelines are still challenges to the approach [46]. It pays special attention to the complex interdependence between different species, habitats, and human activities. Hence, more and more indicators need to be evaluated. When considering the impact of fishery activities on the ecosystem, it includes the following situations: the reduction of target biomass in the ecosystem, impact on non-target fisheries and by-catch taken in fisheries operations, impact on the habitat as a result of the use of destructive fishing gear, and indirect impacts on other species through food-chain effects [47]. The diverse environments and ecosystems on the high seas mean that relevant indicators need to be established and adjusted according to the target species and the ecosystem in which it is located. A “One-size-fits-all” solution is clearly not suitable. According to this, the approach is faced with the dilemma that it is difficult to form a systematic guiding principle, indicator system, and unified measures [48], which will also restrict its further development.
The EAF places fisheries management in a fuller ecosystem context. However, fisheries management is still the management of fisheries, not of ecosystems. The conservation and management of living resources are inseparable from the protection of marine ecosystems. On the one hand, the approach can certainly promote the protection of marine ecosystems. At the same time, only by realizing the protection of marine ecosystems from a more integrated perspective can the sustainable development of living resources be maintained. Obviously, this goal cannot be achieved only by RFMOs or fisheries departments. It also requires the active participation of the whole society.

4.2. Increasing Stakeholders Affect the Implementation of the EAF

The implementation of the EAF requires that the object of fishery management is no longer limited to living resources and fishing activities but also involves marine ecosystems and related human activities. Therefore, it involves more stakeholders. Meanwhile, the active participation of stakeholders is also an important basis for the implementation of the approach [49]. On the one hand, stakeholders play a key role in collecting data, identifying marine ecosystems, and formulating and evaluating implementation measures [50]. On the other hand, for the purpose of safeguarding their own interests, stakeholders also need to actively participate in the implementation of the approach [51]. However, the more stakeholders there are, the more challenges the EAF will face in its practice.
The implementation of the EAF requires coordination and cooperation of stakeholders. Due to differences in the level of economic development, fishing capacity, and the degree of dependence on fisheries, there are differences in the interests and compliance capabilities of the parties to the RFMOs. This will definitely impact the implementation of the approach. On the one hand, a lot of RFMOs adopt a majority or unanimous decision-making process. If the parties have different opinions on the implementation of the EAF, they may use the process to influence it. Moreover, the decisions of RFMOs need to be implemented by contracting parties. They may refuse to comply with it due to their own concern. On the other hand, formulating conservation and management measures based on scientific research is the key to implementing the EAF. Unfortunately, contracting parties usually decide on such measures based on their own interests [52]. The approach proposed higher requirements to the state parties. Even if the parties reach an agreement within the framework of the RFMOs, it may be the result of compromises. One may doubt if they could truly meet the standards required by the EAF [53]. Moreover, irresponsible flag States and insufficient State control of ports also contribute to the insufficient implementation of EAF [54].
Furthermore, as far as the domestic factors of contracting parties are concerned, the increase in stakeholders also brings great challenges to the implementation of the EAF. Since the factors affecting the marine ecosystem are not limited to the fishery sector, the implementation of the approach requires a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the economic, social, cultural, and environmental sectors on the marine ecosystem. Further formulating corresponding measures will inevitably have an impact on the interests of other industries or other sectors outside the fishery department [55]. The active participation of the environment, fisheries, tourism, and other stakeholders in data collection, knowledge acquisition, and decision-making processes, are also important to the implementation of the EAF [56]. However, it should be pointed out that the interests between them are not consistent, and there are even contradictions and conflicts in some areas. Achieving effective communication and coordination between them faces considerable challenges [57].

4.3. Inconsistent with Political Ocean Boundaries

It is an important principle reached by the Conference of the Parties to the CBD that the ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Specifically, the approach is based upon the hierarchical nature of biological diversity characterized by the interaction and integration of genes, species, and ecosystems. Hence, it should be bounded by spatial and temporal scales that are appropriate to the objectives [58]. In terms of the EAF, since it requires the integrated consideration of fishery activities in the ecosystem, the implementation of conservation and management measures are based on ecosystem units. However, such ecosystem units are often located within and beyond the jurisdictional boundaries [59]. The maritime area under national jurisdiction in the UNCLOS is, in principle, defined on the basis of the land dominating the sea, distance, and equity, without taking into account the integrity of the ecosystem. This creates an artificial separation of the marine ecosystem [60]. Thus, the political and maritime boundaries established by UNCLOS do not conform to the biogeographic criteria, and it imposes considerable constraints on the application of EAF.
For RFMOs, since the convention areas are often based on a political consensus reached among contracting parties rather than biogeographic criteria, the management of fisheries is usually limited within the scope. Marine ecosystems based on biogeographic criteria may be artificially separated by the boundaries of regional fisheries agreements. Certain species even migrate within the jurisdiction of different regional fisheries organizations. Thus, it also affects the implementation of the EAF.

4.4. Resistance from Vested Interests

Before the EAF was well recognized, the institutional and management structures of most countries were already established. Jurisdictional boundaries are not divided based on the ecosystem, and fishing activity is managed independently [61]. The roles, responsibilities, power, and jurisdiction of designated authorities are clearly defined.
In order to ensure the implementation of the EAF, it is necessary to reform the management structures. However, this creates challenges for the implementation of the approach. The authorities of departments, objectives, decision-making mechanism, priorities, and indicator system of the existing fishery management structure are all based on traditional fishery management measures. As mentioned above, a significant increase in stakeholders is an inherent requirement of the EAF, and fishery management requires coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders. This makes the past domination of fishery agencies just a part of the integrated management system. Reforming the existing structures would change the distribution of benefits delivered and thus is likely to be resisted by vested interests. In addition, people’s ideas are also a source of resistance to change [62]. Their understanding and describing issues of living resources are often based on traditional management methods. This would cause uncertainties and gaps about how to implement the EAF.

4.5. The Effect of the EAF Is Threatened by IUU Fishing

Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated (IUU) fishing has caused a serious impact on the marine ecosystem. It has become a major challenge for high seas fishery management and the sustainable development of marine resources. Since 2003, RFMOs have started to list the IUU vessels [63]. Figure 2 shows the number of IUU vessels reported by these organizations from 2003 to 2021. As we can see in the figure, vessels are added to the list every year, and the growth has become more pronounced in the past decade. Up to 2021, the total number of IUU vessels has increased to 161. IUU-caught fish is estimated to be equal to 14–33% of the world’s total legal catch [64]. EAF is an important measure for combating IUU fishing. At the same time, the implementation effect of the approach is also threatened by the latter.
IUU fishing aims at maximizing economic benefits and does not comply with the conservation and management measures. It conducts unregulated fishing of the target species, leading to overfishing of those species [65]. IUU fishing often uses illegal fishing methods, which seriously damage the marine ecological environment and diversity of marine biological resources and threaten the effectiveness of the EAF. Violent, unscientific, and unsustainable methods such as illegal bottom trawling are always being used, which can easily cause damage to the marine ecosystem. In order to avoid inspection, illegal fishing gear is abandoned directly into the sea, causing a large number of ghost fishing gear. UNEP has pointed out that there is an undeniable connection between IUU fishing and ghost gear [66]. Reducing or avoiding by-catch is an important objective of the EAF. Although endangered sea turtles, seabirds, and many marine mammals are not direct targets, they often become by-catch of IUU fishing [67]. This has also caused a negative impact on the implementation of the approach.

5. Ideas to Meet Challenges

In order to meet those challenges, the article proposes ideas as follows, building a sense of maritime community with a shared future, advancing the approach by explicating definition, objectives, and priorities, strengthening coordination and cooperation between the states and regional fisheries organizations, adopting area-based management tools (ABMTs) with biogeographical criteria, and enhancing the level of stakeholders’ participation (Table 4).

5.1. Building a Sense of Maritime Community with Shared Future

Sustainable development of high seas living resources is an important part of ocean governance, and the EAF is a key measure to achieve it. The essence of the challenges faced in the implementation of the approach is the dilemma of collective action. The integration of oceans means that fishery governance can no longer be achieved by one single state or a few international organizations. Sustainable fisheries require joint efforts of the international community [68].
The maritime community with a shared future, which guides by principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, advocates peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning, mutual benefit, and win-win results. The explicit purpose of the proposal is to maintain the well-being of the oceans, as well as to strengthen international peace, cooperation, inclusiveness, and harmony [69]. Thus, it provides a new conceptual framework to respond to challenges such as unilateralism and evasion of shared responsibility in ocean governance.
Preventing and controlling marine environmental pollution, protecting marine biodiversity, and promoting the sustainable development and utilization of marine resources are the inherent requirements for building the maritime community with a shared future. Accordingly, building a sense of maritime community with a shared future will help the implementation of the EAF. In fact, building a sense of maritime community with a shared future requires mutual coordination and cooperation of all nations. Since the concept is proposed by China, the country should take the main responsibility for promoting the process. Concerning the practical difficulties and time dimension, a three-phase project is suggested. It is encouraged to enhance marine scientific research and environmental protection cooperation with other States as a start. In terms of medium-term planning, joint exploration of marine resources can be promoted. Finally, it is important to solve maritime disputes with surrounding States peacefully and promote global ocean governance, to build a maritime community with a shared future [70].

5.2. Advancing the Approach by Explicating Definition, Objectives, and Priorities

The EAF is still under development. When faced with many challenges, its implementation cannot be accomplished overnight. Reaching widely recognized definitions and principles, making clear strategy and operational objectives, and clarifying priorities are still key steps.
For a long time, the approach has been criticized for its lack of clear and well-recognized definitions and principles. The General Assembly, FAO, RFMOs with their contracting parties, and other stakeholders should take responsibility for formulating them. In the implementation process, RFMOs and contracting parties could further develop them in combination with the characteristics of the ecosystems under their jurisdiction.
Explicit strategy and operational objectives need to be developed. These are the prerequisite for further implementation of the EAF. Obviously, this requires RFMOs to identify the marine ecosystem units and conduct adequate scientific investigations and assessments. Establishing and improving the indicator system of the EAF is also the basis for the implementation of the approach. RFMOs and the fishery sectors of the contracting parties have already accumulated experience in fishery management. Reforming and expanding the existing indicator systems and applying them to the implementation of the EAF is more feasible. Based on this, further improving the indicator systems to meet the requirements of the approach is needed.
Clarifying the priorities for implementing the EAF is also important. The approach involves many factors such as different species, habitats, and human activities. In addition, there are increasing agencies and stakeholders involving the process. Hence, outlining the priorities is an important step. In fact, some RFMOs have already explored measures, such as establishing MPAs, protecting VMEs, and preventing or reducing by-catch. However, it is also important to recognize that these measures are only preliminary attempts to implement the EAF. They do not mean that the approach has been fully implemented. Further research and exploration of more measures are needed in the future.

5.3. Strengthening Coordination and Cooperation between States and RFMOs

So far, there is no international institution has been established to be responsible for ocean governance or implementation of the EAF. Therefore, strengthening cooperation and coordination among RFMOs and state parties has become an important solution for solving the challenges faced by the EAF.
In fact, RFMOs have already made efforts on this. On the one hand, they are strengthening their cooperation with the United Nations (UN). NEAFC, NAFO, SEAFO, WCPFC, etc., emphasized cooperation with the FAO and other institutions to resolve issues of common concern. The latter established a Regional Fishery Body Secretariats Network (RSN), which provided opportunities for RFMOs to exchange information on current challenges and emerging issues [71]. Up to 2021, the RSN consists of 58 regional fishery bodies (RFBs) secretariats from across the world. As Figure 3 shows, the RSN meetings have attracted more and more participants since 1999. Compared to the 20 RFBs in the 1999 meeting, the number of participants greatly increased to 43 in 2018. A wide range of issues have been discussed in these meetings, including the implementation of EAF [72]. In terms of the approach, the 1999 RSN meeting raised the issue of assessing its influence on the membership composition and functions of existing bodies [73]. More details have been discussed in the following meetings, including relevant international instruments, data collection, technical guidelines, the role of new technologies and actions they were taking on implementing the approach, etc. The RSN meetings have made important contributions to strengthening cooperation among RFMOs with regard to EAF implementation. The network is likely to attract more stakeholders to participate, and the international community should provide them with long-term support. Moreover, more platforms such as RSN should be established in order to provide opportunities for RFMOs and states’ collaboration. On the other hand, strengthening cooperation among RMFOs is also a measure to promote the implementation of the EAF. NEAFC and NAFO established a working group to jointly conserve and manage specific stocks [74], which laid the foundation for the two parties to cooperate on EAF implementation. Not only that, but RFMOs have also cooperated in establishing MPAs to protect transboundary marine ecosystems.
The experience of some RFMOs shows that only relying on the voluntary participation of contracting parties still faces difficulties in the implementation of the EAF in the long run [75]. In this regard, the article recommends the introduction of appropriate compliance mechanisms to provide guarantees for promoting the implementation of the approach. Concerning the domestic politics of state parties, integrated cooperation and coordination mechanisms are also recommended.

5.4. Adopting Biogeographical Criteria-Based ABMTs

Area-based management tools have already been regarded as important measures to implement the EAF. The establishment of MPAs is the basis of the approach. It can better protect biodiversity and habitats. By using this tool, the biomass and diversity of species can rapidly increase, and expanding the existing global MPA network can increase future catch by at least 20% [76,77]. The identification of ecosystem units based on biogeographic criteria is more in line with the natural characteristics of the marine environment. The establishment of MPAs on this basis is helpful to the implementation of the EAF.
According to characteristics of depth, oceanography, productivity, and populations of organisms that are linked in trophic food chains and webs, Sherman recognizes 49 large marine ecosystems (LMEs) [78]. After that, 66 LMEs were confirmed [79]. Longhurst identified four types of basic biomes, namely polar biome, westerlies biome, trades biomes, and coastal biome. Based on this, he then divided the Atlantic, Indian, Pacific, and Southern Oceans into 54 biogeographic provinces [80]. Both the LMEs and Longhurst biomes can provide an important foundation for the successful implementation of the EAF. In the establishment of MPAs, RFMOs can also play an important role. However, it should be pointed out that there are still few organizations making such attempts. Among fifteen main RFMOs, including nine organizations managing fish stocks by region and six organizations managing highly migratory fish species, only two of them have set up MPAs. In other words, only 13% of RFMOs have established marine protected areas, and the remaining 87% have not created such areas (Figure 4a). As mentioned above, CCAMLR has established two marine protected areas. NEAFC has also explored establishing seven MPAs through cooperation with the OSPAR. Of 222,498,835 km2 of high seas, 3,301,299 km2 has been set up to be marine protected areas, covering about 1% of the total area [81] (Figure 4b). The vast majority of this one percent is within the Ross Sea Region Marine Protected Area, which took effect in 2017. In addition, there are still many ocean areas with no regular RFMOs [82]. The international community should pay active attention to this.

5.5. Enhancing the Level of Stakeholders’ Participation

Insufficient participation of stakeholders has been the main challenge in implementing the EAF. In order to promote their participation, the article makes the following suggestions.
First, clear and transparent stakeholder engagement strategies should be formulated. As mentioned above, the participation and cooperation of stakeholders is an important guarantee for the implementation of the approach. RFMOs and their parties should actively negotiate and develop clear rules of participation. On this basis, stakeholders also should be encouraged to participate in the implementation of the EAF as early as possible so that they can play a vital role in providing and collecting data, identifying and evaluating measures, supporting monitoring and compliance, and evaluating marine strategies [83].
Second, for the successful implementation of the EAF, participation capacity building of stakeholders is also critical [84]. Improving their understanding of the approach and training the stakeholders to help them acquire the necessary knowledge and skills should be prioritized. Moreover, establishing mechanisms to improve stakeholders’ communication is also essential [85]. They could use such platforms to exchange information, improve understanding and increase knowledge, etc. At the same time, this could also help to enhance their participation enthusiasm.

6. Conclusions

The governance of high seas fisheries has evolved from the conservation and management of single target species to the associated or dependent species and ecosystem. The application of the EAF has continuously received the attention of the international community and has become a trend in fishery governance. However, the approach cannot be achieved overnight and still face challenges, such as constraints by the approach, increasing stakeholders affecting the implementation of the EAF, inconsistency with political ocean boundaries, resistance from vested interests, and the threat of IUU fishing. In order to deal with those challenges, the article makes suggestions as follows, building a sense of maritime community with a shared future, advancing the approach by explicating definition, objectives, and priorities, strengthening coordination and cooperation between the states and regional fisheries organizations, adopting biogeographical criteria-based ABMTs and enhancing the level of stakeholders’ participation. Furthermore, the sustainable development of high seas living resources and the implementation of the EAF deserve more attention. The international community must do far more to accomplish these goals.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, L.D., P.G.; writing—review and editing, L.D.; funding acquisition, P.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China, grant number: 20VHQ011.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

In this study, the data were mainly obtained from the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), Pew Charitable Trusts, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Marine Protection Atlas.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Worm, B.; Barbier, E.B.; Beaumont, N.; Duffy, J.E.; Folke, C.; Halpern, B.S.; Jackson, J.B.C.; Lotze, H.K.; Micheli, F.; Palumbi, S.R.; et al. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 2006, 314, 787–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 86. Available online: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  3. Spiteri, C.; Senechal, T.; Hazin, C.; Hampton, S.; Greyling, L.; Boteler, B. Study on the Socio-Economic Importance of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction in the Southeast Atlantic Region. STRONG High Seas Project 2021, 27. Available online: https://www.prog-ocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Africa-Socio-Economic-Report_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  4. Pikitch, E.K.; Santora, C.; Babcock, E.A.; Bakun, A.; Bonfil, R.; Conover, D.O.; Dayton, P.; Doukakis, P.; Fluharty, D.; Heneman, B.; et al. Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management. Science 2004, 305, 346–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Morishita, J. What is the Ecosystem Approach for Fisheries Management. Mar. Policy 2008, 32, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Trouwborst, A. The Precautionary Principle and the Ecosystem Approach in International Law: Differences, Similarities and Linkages. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 2009, 18, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Garcia, S.; Cochrane, K. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: A Review of Implementation Guidelines. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2005, 62, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Cowan, J.H.; Rice, J.C.; Walters, C.J.; Hilborn, R.; Essington, T.E.; Day, J.W.; Boswell, K.M. Challenges for Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. Mar. Coast. Fish. 2012, 4, 496–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Karim, S.; Techera, E.; Al Arif, A. Ecosystem-based fisheries management and the precautionary approach in the Indian Ocean regional fisheries management organisations. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 159, 111438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rayfuse, R. Climate Change and Antarctic Fisheries: Ecosystem Management in CCAMLR. Ecol. Law Q. 2018, 45, 53–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cavanagh, R.D.; Trathan, P.N.; Hill, S.L.; Melbourne-Thomas, J.; Meredith, M.P.; Hollyman, P.; Krafft, B.A.; MC Muelbert, M.; Murphy, E.J.; Sommerkorn, M.; et al. Utilising IPCC Assessments to Support the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management within a Warming Southern Ocean. Mar. Policy 2021, 131, 104589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Trathan, P.N.; Fielding, S.; Hollyman, P.R.; Murphy, E.J.; Warwick-Evans, V.; Collins, M.A. Enhancing the ecosystem approach for the fishery for Antarctic krill within the complex, variable, and changing ecosystem at South Georgia. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2021, 78, 2065–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. UNGA Resolution. Report on the Work of the United Nations Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea at Its Seventh Meeting. UN Doc. A/61/156, p. 2. Available online: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/432/90/pdf/N0643290.pdf?OpenElement (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  14. FAO. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 4, Suppl. 4, Add. 2. 2009, pp. 6–7. Available online: https://www.fao.org/docrep/pdf/011/i0151e/i0151e00.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2022).
  15. CBD COP 9 Decision IX/7. Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Its Ninth Meeting. 2008. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-09/cop-09-dec-07-en.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  16. Report of the Resumed Review Conference on the 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. UN Doc. A/CONF.210/2016/5. 2016, p. 35. Available online: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N16/244/06/pdf/N1624406.pdf?OpenElement (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  17. Ntona, M.; Morgera, E. Connecting SDG 14 with the Other Sustainable Development Goals through Marine Spatial Planning. Mar. Policy 2018, 98, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kenny, A.J.; Campbell, N.; Koen-Alonso, M.; Pepin, P.; Diz, D. Delivering sustainable fisheries through adoption of a risk-based framework as part of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Mar. Policy 2018, 93, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Suietnov, Y. Formation and Development of the Ecosystem Approach in International Environmental Law before the Convention on Biological Diversity. J. Environ. Law Policy 2021, 47, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Article 2(3)(b). Available online: https://www.ccamlr.org/en/organisation/camlr-convention-text (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  21. CCAMLR. Krill Fisheries and Sustainability. Available online: https://www.ccamlr.org/en/fisheries/krill-fisheries-and-sustainability (accessed on 27 August 2021).
  22. CCAMLR. Ecosystem Monitoring Program. Available online: https://www.ccamlr.org/en/science/ccamlr-ecosystem-monitoring-program-cemp (accessed on 2 October 2021).
  23. CCAMLR. Browse Conservation Measures. Available online: https://www.ccamlr.org/en/conservation-and-management/browse-conservation-measures (accessed on 21 October 2021).
  24. CCAMLR. Conservation Measure 21-01. 2019. Available online: https://cm.ccamlr.org/sites/default/files/21-01_23.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  25. CCAMLR. Conservation Measure 21-02. 2019. Available online: https://cm.ccamlr.org/en/measure-21-02-2019 (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  26. CCAMLR. Conservation Measure 22-06. 2019. Available online: https://cm.ccamlr.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/22-06.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2022).
  27. CCAMLR. Conservation Measure 91-03. 2009. Available online: https://cm.ccamlr.org/sites/default/files/91-03_9.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2022).
  28. CCAMLR. Conservation Measure 91-05. 2016. Available online: https://cm.ccamlr.org/sites/default/files/91-05_11.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2022).
  29. Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in Northeast Atlantic Fisheries. Articles 4(2)(c), 4(2)(d). Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ad378391-35b0-40fc-959b-cc84e1d17701/language-en (accessed on 23 April 2022).
  30. Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. 2007. Available online: https://leap.unep.org/sites/default/files/treaty/TRE160039.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  31. Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South East Atlantic Ocean. Articles 3(c), (d), (e), (f). Available online: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/032s-e.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2022).
  32. Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Article 5. Available online: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/text.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2022).
  33. Submission by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission: Regarding the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 75/239. 2021. Available online: https://www.un.org/depts/los/general_assembly/contributions_2021/NEAFC.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  34. Recommendation 10 (2021) to amend Recommendation 19 (2014) on the Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. 2021. Available online: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/mul201787.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  35. Pinto, D.D.P. Fisheries Management in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: The Impact of Ecosystem Based Law-Making; Martinus Nijhoff: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 152–153. [Google Scholar]
  36. Memorandum of Understanding between the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the OSPAR Commission. Available online: https://www.ospar.org/documents?d=32804 (accessed on 23 April 2022).
  37. Key Figures of the MPA OSPAR Network. Available online: https://mpa.ospar.org/home-ospar/key-figures (accessed on 6 October 2021).
  38. Convention on Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. Articles VI(6)(c), VI (7). Available online: https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/key-publications/NAFOConvention.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2022).
  39. Koen-Alonso, M.; Pepin, P.; Fogarty, M.J.; Kenny, A.; Kenchington, E. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Roadmap for the development and implementation of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: Structure, State of Development, and Challenges. Mar. Policy 2019, 100, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Report of the NAFO Scientific Council Working Group on Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management. 2010, pp. 75–81. Available online: https://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2010/scs10-19.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2022).
  41. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Scientific Council Reports 2019. Available online: https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/rb/2019/Redbook2019v2.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2022).
  42. NAFO Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) Closures. Available online: https://www.nafo.int/Fisheries/VME (accessed on 14 October 2021).
  43. SEAFO Report. Implementation of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. 2020. Available online: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/ICSP15/SEAFO-ICSP15Contribution.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  44. SEAFO Management. Available online: http://www.seafo.org/Management (accessed on 18 October 2021).
  45. WCPFC Secretariat. Implementation of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. Available online: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/ICSP15/WCPFC-ICSP15Contribution.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2022).
  46. Kirkfeldt, T.S. An Ocean of Concepts: Why Choosing between Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem-based Approach and Ecosystem Approach Makes a Difference. Mar. Policy 2019, 106, 103541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Report of the Secretary-General. Sustainable Fisheries, Including through the 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, and Related Instruments. UN Doc. A/59/298, 2004. pp. 22–26. Available online: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/471/20/pdf/N0447120.pdf?OpenElement (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  48. Link, J.S.; Huse, G.; Gaichas, S.; Marshak, A.R. Changing How We Approach Fisheries: A First Attempt at an Operational Framework for Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management. Fish Fish. 2020, 21, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Langlet, D.; Rayfuse, R. The Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Governance: Perspectives from Europe and Beyond; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019; p. 228. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bone, J.; Clavelle, T.; Ferreira, J.; Grant, J.; Landner, I.; Immink, A.; Stoner, J.; Taylor, N. Best Practices for Aquaculture Management: Guidance for Implementing the Ecosystem Approach in Indonesia and Beyond. 2018, p. 14. Available online: https://sustainablefish.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Aquaculture-Best-Practices-Guide-Nov-9-web-1.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2022).
  51. Garcia, S.M.; Rice, J. Anthony Charles. Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; p. 276. [Google Scholar]
  52. Nilsson, J.A.; Fulton, E.A.; Haward, M.; Johnson, C. Consensus Management in Antarctica’s High Seas: Past Success and Current Challenges. Mar. Policy 2016, 73, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. McDorman, T. Implementing Existing Tools: Turning Words into Actions—Decision-Making Processes of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 2005, 20, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Prabhakar, S.V.R.K.; Scheyvens, H.; Takahashi, Y. Ecosystem-Based Approaches in G20 Countries: Current Status and Priority Actions for Scaling Up. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 2019; pp. 9–10. Available online: https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/discussionpaper/en/6995/EbA+in+G20_Discussion+paper+Final.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  55. Elayaperumala, V.; Hermesb, R.; Brown, D. An Ecosystem Based Approach to the Assessment and Governance of the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem. Deep Sea Res. Part II 2019, 163, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Levin, P.S.; Essington, T.E.; Marshall, K.N.; Koehn, L.E.; Anderson, L.G.; Bundy, A.; Carothers, C.; Coleman, F.; Gerber, L.R.; Grabowski, J.H.; et al. Building Effective Fishery Ecosystem Plans. Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jones, K.; Seara, T. Integrating Stakeholders’ Perceptions into Decision-Making for Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management. Coast. Manag. 2020, 48, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. CBD. Principles of Ecosystem Approach. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml (accessed on 14 January 2022).
  59. De Lucia, V. Towards Ecosystem-Based Governance of the High Seas. International Institute for Environment and Development. 2020. Available online: https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/17757IIED.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2022).
  60. Jin, Y. On the Theoretical Regime of the Maritime Community with a Shared Future. J. Ocean. Univ. China 2021, 1, 4. [Google Scholar]
  61. FAO. A How-to Guide on Legislating for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. 2016, p. 54. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5966e.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2022).
  62. Waylen, K.A. How does legacy create sticking points for environmental management? Insights from challenges to implementation of the ecosystem approach. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 7–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. FAO. IUU Vessel List. Available online: https://www.fao.org/gfcm/data/iuu-vessel-list (accessed on 24 April 2022).
  64. Berveridge, M.; Dieckmann, U.; Fock, H.O.; Froese, R.; Keller, M.; Löwenberg, U.; Merino, G.; Möllmann, C.; Pauly, D.; Prein, M.; et al. World Ocean Review 2013; Maribus: Hamburg, Germany, 2013; p. 77. [Google Scholar]
  65. Liddick, D. The Dimensions of a Transnational Crime Problem: The Case of IUU Fishing. Trends Organ. Crime 2014, 17, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. UNEP. How to Banish the Ghosts of Dead Fishing Gear from Our Seas? 2018. Available online: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-banish-ghosts-dead-fishing-gear-our-seas (accessed on 23 April 2022).
  67. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020: Sustainability in Action. 2020, p. 91. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca9229en/ca9229en.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2022).
  68. Østhagen, A.; Spijkers, J.; Totland, O.A. Collapse of cooperation? The North-Atlantic Mackerel Dispute and Lessons for International Cooperation on Transboundary. Marit. Stud. 2020, 19, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, W.B.; Chang, Y.C.; Zhang, L.F. An Ocean Community with a Shared Future: Conference Report. Mar. Policy 2020, 116, 103888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yenchiang, C. On Legal Implementation Approaches toward a Maritime Community with a Shared Future. China Leg. Sci. 2020, 8, 23–30. [Google Scholar]
  71. FAO. Regional Fishery Body Secretariats Network. Available online: https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/rsn (accessed on 17 January 2022).
  72. FAO Regional Fishery Body Secretariats Network. 20 Years Looking Back: The Journey So Far. 2019, pp. 41–91. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca3925en/CA3925EN.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  73. FAO. Report of the Meeting of FAO and Non-FAO Regional Fishery Bodies or Arrangements. 1999. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/X1840E/X1840E00.htm (accessed on 25 April 2022).
  74. Thomson, A. The ManaKenneth Shermangement of Redfish (Sebastes Mentella) in the North Atlantic Ocean—A Stock in Movement. FAO. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=XF2004406289 (accessed on 21 April 2022).
  75. Constable, A.J. Lessons from CCAMLR on the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to Managing Fisheries. Fish Fish. 2011, 12, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Topor, Z.M.; Rasher, D.B.; Duffy, J.E.; Brandl, S.J. Marine protected areas enhance coral reef functioning by promoting fish biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 2019, 12, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cabral, R.B.; Bradley, D.; Mayorga, J.; Goodell, W.; Friedlander, A.M.; Sala, E.; Costello, C.; Gaines, S.D. A global network of marine protected areas for food. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 28135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sherman, K.; Lewis, A.; Gold, B.D. Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation and Sustainability; AAAS Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  79. Lambach, D. The Functional Territorialization of the High Seas. Mar. Policy 2021, 130, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Longhurst, A.R. Ecological Geography of the Sea, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2007; pp. 90–475. [Google Scholar]
  81. High Seas Marine Protected Area. Marine Protection Atlas. Available online: https://mpatlas.org/countries/HS (accessed on 25 April 2022).
  82. Takei, Y. Filling Regulatory Gaps in High Seas Fisheries: Discrete High Seas Fish Stocks, Deep-Sea Fisheries and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 245. [Google Scholar]
  83. Partnerships Involving Stakeholders in the Celtic Sea Ecosystem (PISCES). A Guide to Implementing the Ecosystem Approach through the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 2012, p. 7. Available online: https://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/the_pisces_guide.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2022).
  84. Mackinsona, S.; Middletonb, D.A.J. Evolving the Ecosystem Approach in European Fisheries: Transferable Lessons from New Zealand’s Experience in Strengthening Stakeholder Involvement. Mar. Policy 2018, 90, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Alexander, K.A.; Haward, M. The Human Side of Marine Ecosystem-based Management (EBM): ‘Sectoral Interplay’ as a Challenge to Implementing EBM. Mar. Policy 2019, 101, 36–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 06171 g001 550
Figure 1. VMEs and MPAs identified by CCAMLR. (a) Vulnerable marine ecosystems identified for regulating bottom fishing; (b) two marine protected areas identified for the Commission to implement the EAF.
Figure 1. VMEs and MPAs identified by CCAMLR. (a) Vulnerable marine ecosystems identified for regulating bottom fishing; (b) two marine protected areas identified for the Commission to implement the EAF.
Sustainability 14 06171 g001
Sustainability 14 06171 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of IUU vessels listed by RFMOs annually.
Figure 2. Number of IUU vessels listed by RFMOs annually.
Sustainability 14 06171 g002
Sustainability 14 06171 g003 550
Figure 3. Number of regional fishery bodies in RSN meeting. Attendance in 2021 drops markedly due to COVID-19.
Figure 3. Number of regional fishery bodies in RSN meeting. Attendance in 2021 drops markedly due to COVID-19.
Sustainability 14 06171 g003
Sustainability 14 06171 g004 550
Figure 4. Marine Protected Area in High Seas. (a) Number and proportion of RFMOs with or without marine protected area; (b) Size and proportion of designated marine protected area and other free area in high seas. (The number prior to “,” means quantity, and the one after “,” means proportion.).
Figure 4. Marine Protected Area in High Seas. (a) Number and proportion of RFMOs with or without marine protected area; (b) Size and proportion of designated marine protected area and other free area in high seas. (The number prior to “,” means quantity, and the one after “,” means proportion.).
Sustainability 14 06171 g004
Table
Table 1. Representative measures of the EAF.
Table 1. Representative measures of the EAF.
NumberRepresentative Measures
1consider the impact on associated or dependent species and ecosystems
2strictly control destructive fishing gear
3prevent or reduce by-catch
4control bottom fishing and protect VMEs
5adopt area-based management tools
Table
Table 2. The Practice of EAF by Representative RFMOs.
Table 2. The Practice of EAF by Representative RFMOs.
RFMOSpecific Measures
NEAFCcontrol fishing gear strictly to reduce by-catch
identify 13 VMEs and prohibit bottom fishing in these areas
cold-water coral conservation and management
establish 7 MPAs with OSPAR based on biogeographic criteria
NAFOidentify bioregion, Ecosystem Production Unit and ecoregion
determine the total allowable catch based on ecosystem model
identify 20 VMEs and adopt protection measures
SEAFOidentify VMEs, set up closed areas and restrict bottom trawling
adopt measures to reduce by-catch of seabirds and turtles
WCPFCdata collection incorporates economic, social and cultural aspects
adopt measures for addressing the impacts of fishing on the ecosystem
implement control and surveillance activities
Table
Table 3. Challenges with Practicing the EAF in High Seas Fishery Management.
Table 3. Challenges with Practicing the EAF in High Seas Fishery Management.
NumberChallenges
1constraints by the approach itself
2increasing stakeholders affect the implementation of the EAF
3inconsistent with political ocean boundaries
4resistance from vested interests
5the effect of the EAF is threatened by IUU Fishing
Table
Table 4. Ideas to meet with challenges faced by the EAF.
Table 4. Ideas to meet with challenges faced by the EAF.
NumberSuggestions
1building a sense of maritime community with shared future
2advancing the approach by explicating definition, objectives and priorities
3strengthening coordination and cooperation between states and RFMOs
4adopting biogeographical criteria-based ABMTs
5enhancing the level of stakeholders’ participation
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dong, L.; Guo, P. The Practice of Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries on the High Seas: Challenges and Suggestions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6171. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106171

AMA Style

Dong L, Guo P. The Practice of Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries on the High Seas: Challenges and Suggestions. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):6171. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106171

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dong, Limin, and Peiqing Guo. 2022. "The Practice of Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries on the High Seas: Challenges and Suggestions" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 6171. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106171

APA Style

Dong, L., & Guo, P. (2022). The Practice of Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries on the High Seas: Challenges and Suggestions. Sustainability, 14(10), 6171. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106171

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop