1. Abstract
The harvest of marine animals from the oceans is one of the
oldest forms of sustenance provision in history. When the world's
population was smaller, mankind's needs were less. The technology
required to harvest fish at the required levels did not threaten
the depletion of a maritime resource. With the modern age came
longer life spans, lower infant mortality, overall economic
prosperity, and larger populations. The food requirements dictated
improved harvest technology, and market competition spurred greater
advancements in marine fisheries techniques. The day has arrived
where the need, or desire, for fish, coupled with efficient fishing
technology and techniques, can have a detrimental affect on marine
wildlife populations regeneration cycle. One such species to feel
such affects is the tuna.
II. Issue Background
Although the specific area of focus here is the harvest of
tuna from the South Pacific region, it must be understood that the
affect of tuna fishing in other parts of the world, as well as
South Pacific and global environmental influences, affect the
available tuna stock in the South Pacific region. Tuna is part of
the pelagic fishes group, and are highly migratory throughout the
high seas. A country will not only fish tuna in it's regional
waters, but dispatch fleets of large boats throughout the world to
fish for tuna. This is particularly true of the South Pacific,
where the regional populations relative needs for tuna is minor
compared to the insatiable appetites of other nations; and where
they lack organic infrastructure to participate in substantive tuna
harvest operations. Additionally, Melanesian countries lack a
developed understanding of the extent of the total resource base,
management of scarce national resources and the environmental
impact of development activities essential to sustainable marine
resource development. This observation is provided in a 20th
century, western civilization paradigm of natural resource harvest
on large scales. The history of the indigenous peoples of the
region provides that they are indeed quite aware of the basic
connection of the sea and humans, and the delicate balance the
ecosystem must maintain. The harvest of marine resources to the
degree discussed in this review has never been an issue of concern
before the introduction to this region of modern technologies and
economies.
III. Relevant TED Cases
1. SEACUKE case
This case addresses the harvesting of sea animals, sea
cucumbers, from the Galapagos Island region by remote countries in
Asia. The two general aspects of this study are the depletion of
an integral species in an intact yet fragile and unique ecosystem
and the international relations / trade aspect; all in an
environment where the local human population is indifferent to the
plight of these animals.
2. TUNA case
These cases address regulatory measures on tuna harvest
techniques enacted to reduce the incidence of dolphin mortality in
large scale tuna harvests. The purse seine technique of tuna
fishing results in indiscriminate killing of dolphins. No
reference was made to a scientific study citing the effect of such
killings on the dolphin population. The precipitating event for
such U.S. policy was the fact that these animals, which humans, and
Americans in particular, have a close emotional attachment, were
being killed ancillary to tuna harvesting. Tuna fishermen actually
use dolphin to find tuna. The U.S. regulations were challenged by
a number of GATT countries, and the regulation was found not in
accordance to the GATT.
3. UKCOD case
This study focuses on efforts at conservation of decreasing
stocks of regional (North Atlantic) cod. There was general
agreement among the European and North American nations involved
that the stocks needed management to avoid overutilization and
depletion. The issues that arose relate to the ability of a
stagnant European economy to absorb catch quotas without
experiencing further economic degradation. Additionally, regional
quotas forced some fishing fleets to migrate to other waters which
in turn precipitated further conflicts regarding individual
country's EEZs.
4. SALMON case
This case review the plight of Canadian efforts at regional
resource management, via non-tariff barriers to trade, which
although enacted to curb stock depletion were found legally in
conflict with GATT obligations.
5. PACTUNA case
This case addresses the circumstances surrounding the harvest
of tuna in the South Pacific by extraterritorial fishing fleets.
At issue is not only the depletion of a fishing stock but also the
regional economic and political dilemmas that occur as a result of
this circumstance.
IV. Comparison and Contrast
Common aspects of the above cases that relate to trade and
environment include:
A. Regional resource management.
B. Highly migratory, global, and wide ranging fishing fleets.
C. Involvement of extra-regional states.
D. Economic influence on environmental or resource management
issues.
A. Regional resource management.
In all the cases, efforts at fish stock management relate to
one area in the world. Sea cucumbers in the Galapagos, tuna in the
eastern tropical and southern pacific, salmon in coastal Canada,
and cod in the North Atlantic. The issues are not raised as a
result of recognition of global fish stock trends. They were the
result of regional countries identifying real and potential
depletion of regional stocks.
The sea cucumbers are indigenous to the one region discussed
and not migratory. As such they have become an integral aspect of
a regional ecosystem commonly identified as unique and fragile.
The resource management experienced here is based on species
salvation and to avoid extinction. The harvest of these animals by
Asian countries is conducted to satisfy a market that considers sea
cucumbers a delicacy with medical attributes. Sea cucumbers are
not a source of substantial subsistence for these countries.
The tuna-dolphin cases relate to the harvest technique which
killed dolphin as a by product of the tuna harvest. The regional
management is the result of U.S. population proximity to the
harvest, i.e.; "in sight, in mind". The U.S. enacted regulations
which banned the import of tuna that was harvested by methods that
kill dolphin. Mexico was affected the most because of its
geographical and economic proximity to the U.S. and its tuna
imports to the U.S. Here again, as in the sea cucumber case, the
resource management was not base solely on foodstuff depletion. It
was enacted here out of concern for the killing of dolphin
ancillary to tuna harvests. Studies indicated that the global and
regional dolphin population was in no threat of depletion. The
management measure was enacted, unilaterally and in a regional
market / ecosystem, because the American population held an
enormous emotional attachment to the intelligent marine mammals and
as a result of an expanding environmental awareness across the
nation. This measure had only a secondary and arguably meager
affect of reducing the tuna harvest -- studies revealed that
fishing fleets merely changed techniques and adapted in order to
continue large harvests. The true effect of the nature of this
measure was in the consumer boycott of tuna in the market,
something that GATT courts could not influence, yet had a more
profound affect on amending tuna harvest techniques than did the
regulation enacted by the U.S. Here again, the affect was mainly
regional.
The UK cod case is regional management as a result of
resource, country, and cultural reasons. The resource, cod, have
been a regional staple for centuries and has become an
indispensable asset of the regional diet, economy, and is tied to
the culture. Additionally, all the countries involved are local
harvesters, unlike the tuna and sea cucumber cases. The countries
involved have a vested interest because potential stock depletion
affects coastal, local, national, and regional economies.
The Canadian salmon case is similar to the tuna - dolphin case
in that it is ne country enacting regulations that affect regional
countries. Yet here the goal is indeed resource management of fish
stocks for economic as well as environmental concerns.
The South Pacific tuna case is regional by virtue of a highly
(globally) migratory fish being in a region that is easily accessed
by Asian and North American fishing fleets. Just as in the sea
cucumber case, it is extra-regional states that threaten stock
depletion. The indigenous human population and political entities
do not have an appreciable impact on the regional harvest as actual
fishing participants. They instead rely on revenues from fishing
fees for income and the few processing plants located on island
nations, run by extra-regional nations but employing local
labor.
B. Highly migratory, global, and technologically advanced,
mass harvest fishing fleets. For all of the cases, the reason that
species or stock depletion is a concern is that countries can
dispatch large vessels in large fleets for prolonged periods to any
part of the world to harvest resources using the latest detection
and catch techniques. There is no area that is safe from these
fleets, and their ability to harvest large quantities anywhere
anytime provides for a situation in which the only regulatory
mechanism must be created, enacted, followed, and enforced by
humans. The natural order of things is set askew by the ability of
one predator (humans) to harvest limitless quantities of resources
from any ocean.
C. Involvement of extraterritorial states. It is by virtue
of the resource venue, water, that provides for the opportunity for
these fleets to range the globe at relatively low cost. The
resource itself, fish, is very migratory (with the exception of the
sea cucumber) and thus enter and exit economic zones and
territorial waters regularly. The combination of migratory
resources (sea cucumber excluded) and the ease of ocean transport
provide for situations in which countries can have a significant
effect of regional resources thousands of miles away.
D. Economic and political influence on environments and or
resource management issues. All of the cases share this aspect,
varying only in country name and political structure. The cod and
South Pacific tuna cases deal with a number of countries focused on
a regional stock issue. The significant difference is the
structure, format, and complexity of cooperation (if any) which
will be addressed in the next section. The salmon, tuna/dolphin,
and sea cucumber cases are situations in which one countries
regulations or attempted management policies and or economic issues
affect the harvest or trade capacity of others. Overall, the them
here is that no one country or group of countries can enact
management measures without affecting the economy and politics of
other nations. As much as this shows that regional ecosystems are
simply an integral part of a global ecosystem, this comparison also
proves that international trade is still a powerful factor that
inexorably intertwines countries.
The aspects of each case which are different include:
A. Legal aspects.
B. Nature and form of agreements.
C. Regional cooperation.
D. Scientific data.
A. Legal aspects. In one aspect this issue relates to
international law in codified or statutory form. One basic aspect
of international law is that the only power it has over a country
is that which is granted by that country. To that end, the cod
case stands alone in representing a situation in which a group of
countries abide by a regulation by choice. There is no dispute
among these countries as to the validity of the law, only the
particular aspects of the regulation as they relate to each
country.
In the middle of this legal spectrum is the salmon and
tuna/dolphin cases. These represent situations in which one
country enacts regulation geared towards its particular
environmental, economic, political, or cultural biases. The
regulations ostensibly adversely affect other countries trade and
economy. These countries then dispute the validity of the
regulation based more on economic than legal grounds. Indeed, GATT
court cases evolved from these situations, and the findings were
for the most part for the plaintiff country (ies). The sea
cucumber case is similar to this only in that it is one country
versus a number of others. Yet in this case the single country
attempts to stem the depletion of a fishery stock for species and
ecosystem protection and not economic reasons. This regulation
does not adversely affect the economy of the harvest nations and
therefor no legal battle ensues.
One the other end of the spectrum is the South Pacific tuna
case in which no regulation of significance exists that is all
encompassing of every participating nation in the regional tuna
harvest. The reasons for this are outlined in the subsequent
sections.
C. Regional cooperation/agreements. The cod case represents
a situation in which countries within a geographic region are tied
together by the fisheries industry. The depletion of the cod stock
can have substantive detrimental economic impact on every country
in the area. Therefor, the impetus is strong for regional
cooperation and mutual agreements to prevent environmental and thus
economic problems. The sea cucumber case differs in that a distant
group of countries influenced by cultural preferences seeks to
harvest a resource from another country's EEZ. There is no
compelling reason beyond economic gain why the one country should
facilitate exploitation of its resources by distant nations. The
sea cucumber does not have an appreciable influence on the host
nations economy, and its depletion can only result in a cascade of
detrimental affects on the regional ecosystem.
Unique still are the salmon and tuna/dolphin cases. These are
instances in which an individual country has taken unilateral
regulatory action that affects established regional economic
alliances. In the same way that regional cooperation is adversely
affected by the enactment and enforcement of such regulations, the
rapport (economic, political, and cultural) already established by
existing cooperative efforts have the potential to facilitate
solutions. Nevertheless, the core issue of each case was not
initially resolved through regional cooperation - rather, by legal
injunction.
The South Pacific tuna case differs in that there is not
strong or influential regional pact from which to organize
solutions. Individual countries in the region make agreements with
individual harvest countries. The difficulty here is not so much
the disparity in agreements or the lack of political and economic
power that is possible in coordinated regional efforts, but the
fact that the EEZ waters of countries overlap by many miles.
Depending on the variance in country to country agreements, it can
be difficult at best to enforce, regulate, or monitor compliance by
fleets. The lack of regional cooperation here is detrimental to
the ecosystem because market competition between South Pacific
island nations and among fishing nations force large harvests and
can cause severe stock depletion.
D. Scientific data. Scientific data has varying affects on
the cases for a number of reasons, the primary of which is the
inherent difficulty of gathering such data on a species as
numerous, migratory, and ecologically fragile as fish. Population
data is based on projections gleaned from harvest or catch figures
and the behavior and population of other species. Anyone who
considers counting large herds of gazelles difficult should
evaluate the pain involved in counting a more numerous species
that cannot be seen. Another problem is finding the fish.
Although it is not unusual to have land species that range hundreds
of miles, fish are influenced by currents and temperatures in
unique ways.
Data compilation techniques, theories, and biases vary among
researchers. Not only can the same data be interpreted different
ways, but different data can be gathered for the same study based
on the above influences. For the cod and sea cucumber cases, the
species are fairly well defined and geographically confined. The
prodigious harvesting provides fairly accurate and steady
information on stock levels. In the tuna/dolphin cases, there was
no scientific data to support a contention that the dolphin
population was being depleted. And for the South Pacific tuna
case, the lack of regional cooperation severely inhibits the
compilation of data, both for raw figures and historical
interpretation.
The overall policy implications of all the cases vary. While
the cod case portends substantive economic influence among fairly
cooperative nations, the South Pacific tuna case can, as a result
of the lack of regional cooperation, spell doom for tuna stocks in
that region and thus influence stock populations in other regions.
The affect on the ecosystem can only be estimated, but is not
inconceivable that it would be quite severe overall. Where the
salmon case was a non-tariff barrier to trade focused on avoiding
stock depletion, the tuna/dolphin cases are examples of extreme
cultural influence in a political - economic environment otherwise
not detrimental to conventional covenants on tuna harvests.
5. Further information.
A. Bibliography
Craven, John P. The Management of Pacific Marine Resources:
Present Problems and Future Trends. Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press, 1982.
Garlan, J.A. ed. Fish Population Dynamics 2ed. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1988.
Kent, George The Politics of Pacific Island Fisheries.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1980.
B. Other web sites
http://kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov/
http://nicz.hawaii.net/ogden/pacific/spc.html
http://swfsc.ucsd.edu/
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/