UNCLOS, Agenda 21 (Rio Declaration)
The situation for human beings have worsened throughout the course of time. This is backed by the differences and disparities between nations, poverty that is getting worse day by day, the issue of hunger, lack of good health and illiteracy and the continuous degradation of the environment. However, the concern for the conservation and development of the environment has been observed by the nations (Schröder-Hinrichs et al. 2013) and they are taking up measures to secure the environment from further damage. This is due to the fact that a safer environment will eventually ensure a better future and sustainability of life and a successful future. Furthermore, this cannot be achieved by a single nation alone but is possible by the unification of the nations to deal with this global problem.
This paper focusses on the issues and impact related to the International Maritime Policies with respect to the special provisions that have been included in it for the purpose of assisting in the development of the developing countries. The paper also discusses about the lack of benefits to the developing nations from the inclusions.
UNCLOS, Agenda 21 (Rio Declaration):
The increasing problems of the present times are addressed by Agenda 21. It takes up the objectives of preparation of the world for the obstacles and difficulties that will be faced by the human race in the next century (Hassan 2017). A consensus of the globe and political commitment of the utmost level on the cooperation and development of the environment has been reflected in the agenda. It is the responsibility of the Governments to look after the successful implementation of the policy. The national plans and strategies, policies and processes play an important role in the achievement of the implementation of the agenda. In addition, such efforts should be supported by the cooperation of International entities and organizations. The United nations play a significant role in the unification of the countries and supporting each other. The objectives of Agenda 21 (Vince 2015) that are related to the development and the environment, will need a flow of finances of a considerable amount to the developing nations. This is required for the purpose of covering the costs that are increasing for the actions that are undertaken by such nations for dealing with the environmental problems globally for the purpose of speeding up and achieving sustainable development.
Monetary resources are not only needed for the achievement of the developmental and environmental objectives but also for increasing the strength of the potential of the global institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21 (Van, Afionis and Doran 2013). Particular circumstances that are facing the economies in transition require special attention for the implementation of the relevant areas of program that are identified in Agenda 21. It must also be identified that such countries are facing difficulties that were unknown in the transformation of their economies. In some circumstances, this happens in the middle of substantial social and political tension.
The regions of the program that consists of Agenda 21 are defined on the basis of objectives, action, activities and measures of implementation. The policy of Agenda 21 (Techera 2014) is a dynamic program. It will be executed by the different actors depending on the various situations, priorities and capacities of countries and areas in accordance to the principles that are contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
FAO Fish Stocks Agreement
The Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 10th December 1982 (Gagern and van den Bergh 2013) which related to the Conservation and Management of Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks was introduced and was implemented on 11th December 2001 (Agnew et al. 2013). The UN Fish Stock Agreement has the objective of making sure the long-term conservation and sustainable usage of the stocks within the framework of UNCLOS. In addition, the agreement identifies the duties of the flag States which include those related to the registration and records of authorizations, vessels and compliance and enforcement (Pauly, Hilborn and Branch 2013). The cooperation of international, regional and sub-regional enforcement is also stated along with the boarding and inspection procedures and transfer measures by the State.
The FAO Fish Stocks Agreement frames the legal schedule for the conservation and management of straddling stocks of fish, which are highly migratory in nature. The agreement has a view of ensuring the conservation on a long term basis and sustainable use of the mentioned resources. In addition, the Agreement also explains the basic principle established in the Convention that the countries should collaborate in taking the appropriate and necessary steps for the conservation of the resources mentioned (De Bruyn, Murua and Aranda 2013). Furthermore, the Agreement also contained new principles, rules and norms that compose of a continuous development of the provisions that are relevant to the Convention and are objected to addressing of new challenges that affect the high seas fisheries. The Agreement recognizes the additional requirements of the countries that are developing, which include the development of their own fisheries and participation in fisheries of the high seas aimed for the stocks of fish.
The Agreement marked a significant step in the development of a comprehensive legal schedule for the conservation and sustainable usage of straddling and highly migratory stocks of fish, which was long-term. The Agreement (Langlois et al. 2014) particularly has contributed to the conservation and management of the fisheries of the world for the stocks. It aimed at the achievement of these by providing several provisions.
- It aimed at strengthening the role of the organizations and arrangements for management of fisheries that were regional in nature.
- It looked at ensuring mechanisms that were effective for the compliance and enforcement of measures for international management conservation and conservation.
- Planning the responsibility and purpose of regional fisheries management organizations (Eide et al. 2013) and arrangements, which included the offering of definitions of their operations and functions.
- The establishment of general principles that include the precautionary and approaches of ecosystem for the management and conservation of straddling and highly migratory stocks of fish in all the regions around the world.
- The measures of conservation and management are required to be adopted based on the most effective evidence of science available and for countries to be more cautious at the time of uncertainty, unreliability or inadequacy of information.
- Providing strength to the responsibility of the flag States over the vessels used for fishing so that they can trade on the high seas.
- The requirement of compatibility between the measures of conservation and management that are adopted for areas under national jurisdiction and the ones that are established in the surrounding high seas to ensure the management and conservation of fish stocks entirely.
- It aimed at providing the mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes between the countries and other parties.
- Recognition of the exceptional requirements of countries that are under development in relation to conservation and management, including their allowance to access to a fund of assistance under part VII of UNFSA (Druel and Gjerde 2014).
There has been special provisions in the Agreement to assist the developing countries in particular. Article 25 of the Agreement (Wegge 2015) needs the countries to cooperate for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the developing nations to conserve and manage fish stocks and developing their own fisheries for such stocks. The Article also specifies the participation in fisheries of the high seas for such stocks and to facilitate the participation of them in the sub-regional organizations and arrangements for the management of fisheries.
- One of the several forms of cooperation mentioned in the Article 25 is the provision of monetary assistance by the developed nations to the developing countries. According to this provision, the developed states are required to cooperate and establish special funds for the assistance of the developing nations in the implementation of the Agreement.
- In addition to financial assistance to the developing nations, the Agreement also facilitates the participation of the representatives (Hollowed et al. 2013) from the countries under development in the activities and meetings of the regional fishery managements and organizations and arrangements concerning high sea fisheries.
- Building of ability for activities in significant areas like effective practice of responsibilities, monitoring, surveillance and control of flag States. It also comprises of collection of data and research based on science that is relevant to fish stock on a national and regional level.
- Facilitation of exchange of information and experience on implementing the Agreement.
- The developed States were also required to assist the developing nations with development of human resources and technical training along with technical assistance related to the conservation and management of stocks (Gjerde et al. 2013) and the development of fisheries for the stocks. This was constantly with the duty to ensure the appropriate conservation and management of such stocks.
However, despite these special privileges have been facilitated in the Agreement, the developed States have continued gaining the facilities they had and did not assist the developing countries at an exponential level. The financial assistance (Gagern and van den Bergh 2013) by the developed nations was less and insufficient for the developing nations to progress. In addition, the developed States are so engrossed about the competition of the market that they refrain from supporting the smaller, developing states. Furthermore, they seek human resource from the developing states for their own development rather than providing some to the developing nations. All of these reasons are responsible for the failure of the policies aimed to be implemented in reality by the FAO Fish Stocks Agreement.
Impact of the Agreement
Conclusion
The aforementioned report looked upon the policies and procedures objected to implement the provisions upon the countries under development so that they can benefit from them in the maritime sector. More elaborately, the policies and procedures in the form of Agenda 21 of UNCLOS of Rio Declaration and the FAO Fish Stocks Agreement aimed at providing appropriate platforms to the developing countries for the conservation and management of the straddles and high seas stocks. Moreover, these Agreements also aimed at the improvement in the situations faced by the fishing industry in the developing countries. The Agreement had the purpose of protecting the rights of the developing nations in the sector of fisheries by implementing financial and human resource aid along with proper monitoring and control of the fisheries. The Agreement also wanted to strengthen the responsibility of the flag States over the vessels used for fishing so that they could be on the high seas. However, the measures were not implemented properly and the developed countries continue to enjoy the privileges provided to them and do not assist the developing nations in terms of the mentioned amenities, making the situation worse.
References
Agnew, D.J., Gutiérrez, N.L., Stern-Pirlot, A., Smith, A.D.M., Zimmermann, C. and Sainsbury, K., 2013. Rebuttal to Froese and Proelss “Evaluation and legal assessment of certified seafood”. Marine Policy, 38, pp.551-553.
De Bruyn, P., Murua, H. and Aranda, M., 2013. The Precautionary approach to fisheries management: How this is taken into account by Tuna regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs). Marine Policy, 38, pp.397-406.
Druel, E. and Gjerde, K.M., 2014. Sustaining marine life beyond boundaries: options for an implementing agreement for marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Marine Policy, 49, pp.90-97.
Eide, A., Heen, K., Armstrong, C., Flaaten, O. and Vasiliev, A., 2013. Challenges and successes in the management of a shared fish stock–the case of the Russian–Norwegian Barents Sea cod fishery. Acta Borealia, 30(1), pp.1-20.
Gagern, A. and van den Bergh, J., 2013. A critical review of fishing agreements with tropical developing countries. Marine Policy, 38, pp.375-386.
Gagern, A. and van den Bergh, J., 2013. A critical review of fishing agreements with tropical developing countries. Marine Policy, 38, pp.375-386.
Gjerde, K.M., Currie, D., Wowk, K. and Sack, K., 2013. Ocean in peril: Reforming the management of global ocean living resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Marine pollution bulletin, 74(2), pp.540-551.
Hassan, D., 2017. Protecting the marine environment from land-based sources of pollution: towards effective international cooperation. Routledge.
Hollowed, A.B., Barange, M., Beamish, R.J., Brander, K., Cochrane, K., Drinkwater, K., Foreman, M.G., Hare, J.A., Holt, J., Ito, S.I. and Kim, S., 2013. Projected impacts of climate change on marine fish and fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(5), pp.1023-1037.
Langlois, J., Fréon, P., Delgenes, J.P., Steyer, J.P. and Hélias, A., 2014. New methods for impact assessment of biotic-resource depletion in life cycle assessment of fisheries: theory and application. Journal of cleaner production, 73, pp.63-71.
Pauly, D., Hilborn, R. and Branch, T.A., 2013. Fisheries: Does catch reflect abundance?. Nature, 494(7437), p.303.
Schröder-Hinrichs, J.U., Hollnagel, E., Baldauf, M., Hofmann, S. and Kataria, A., 2013. Maritime human factors and IMO policy. Maritime Policy & Management, 40(3), pp.243-260.
Techera, E.J., 2014. Approaches to conservation and governance of marine species. In Sharks: conservation, governance and management (pp. 29-46). Routledge.
Van Alstine, J., Afionis, S. and Doran, P., 2013. The UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+ 20): A sign of the times or ‘ecology as spectacle’?. Environmental Politics, 22(2), pp.333-338.
Vince, J., 2015. Integrated policy approaches and policy failure: the case of Australia’s Oceans Policy. Policy Sciences, 48(2), pp.159-180.
Wegge, N., 2015. The emerging politics of the Arctic Ocean. Future management of the living marine resources. Marine Policy, 51, pp.331-338.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
