Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- 5 The Pursuit of Good Regulatory Design Principles in International Fisheries Law
- 6 Mixing Regional Fisheries Management and Private Certification
- 7 RFMO-MSC Smart Regulatory Mixes for Transboundary Tuna Fisheries
- 8 Smart Mixes in Forest Governance1
- 9 Governing Forest Supply Chains
- 10 Public Sector Engagement with Private Governance Programmes
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
7 - RFMO-MSC Smart Regulatory Mixes for Transboundary Tuna Fisheries
from Part II - Fisheries and Forestry
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2019
Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- 5 The Pursuit of Good Regulatory Design Principles in International Fisheries Law
- 6 Mixing Regional Fisheries Management and Private Certification
- 7 RFMO-MSC Smart Regulatory Mixes for Transboundary Tuna Fisheries
- 8 Smart Mixes in Forest Governance1
- 9 Governing Forest Supply Chains
- 10 Public Sector Engagement with Private Governance Programmes
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
Summary
Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) facilitate international cooperation for the management of shared transboundary fish resources like tuna. However, RFMOs are challenged with dynamic interests which have slowed progress towards collective decisions on establishing key management measures such as harvest control rules and target and limit reference points. Private institutions like the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a third-party certification standard, have been introduced to incentivise the adoption of these and more measures. The role of MSC as a private institution is thought to work in a linear way – providing economic incentives for meeting its standards. However, based on a comparison of three RFMOs in the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, this chapter shows how the MSC influences decision making in very different ways. In doing so we demonstrate different ‘pathways’ through which MSC has been used to create change at the RMFO level. The findings hold relevance for a wider understanding of how third-party certification contributes to change beyond market incentives alone.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm , pp. 146 - 169Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Allen, R. 2010. ‘International management of tuna fisheries: Arrangements, challenges and a way forward’, Technical Paper, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture.Google Scholar
Aqorau, T. 2015. ‘How Tuna is Shaping Regional Diplomacy’. In Fry, G. & Tarte, S. (eds.), The New Pacific Diplomacy. Canberra, ANU Press, 223–235.Google Scholar
Aranda, M., Murua, H. & de Bruyn, P. 2012. ‘Managing Fishing Capacity in Tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs): Development and State of the Art’. Marine Policy 36(5), 985–992.Google Scholar
Auld, G. & Gulbrandsen, L.H. 2010. ‘Transparency in Non-state Certification: Consequences for Accountability and Legitimacy’. Global Environmental Politics 10(3),97–119.Google Scholar
Bailey, M., Sumaila, U. & Martell, S. 2013. ‘Can Cooperative Management of Tuna Fisheries in the Western Pacific Solve the Growth Overfishing Problem?’ Strategic Behavior and the Environment 3, 31–66.Google Scholar
Banks, R. 2009. Pre-Assessment Report for the Unassociated and Associated Purse Seine Fisheries Operating in PNA Waters. Australia, Moody Marine Limited.Google Scholar
Banks, R., Clark, L., Huntington, T., Lewis, T. & Hough, A. 2011. MSC Assessment Report for PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Unassociated and Log Set Purse Seine Fishery. Intertek Moody Marine, Moody International, Version: 4 Final Report.Google Scholar
Banks, R., Clark, L., Huntington, T., Lewis, T. & Hough, A. 2012. MSC Assessment Report for PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Unassociated and Log Set Purse Seine Fishery. UK, Intertek Moody Marine.Google Scholar
Barclay, K. & Cartwright, I. 2007. ‘Governance of Tuna Industries: The Key to Economic Viability and Sustainability in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean’. Marine Policy 31 348–358.Google Scholar
Bellchambers, L. M., Fisher, E. A., Harry, A. V. & Travaille, K. L. 2016. ‘Identifying and Mitigating Potential Risks for Marine Stewardship Council Assessment and Certification’. Fisheries Research 182, 7–17.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, J. 2006. ‘Responsive Regulation and Developing Economies’. World Development, 34(5), 884–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, B. E. 2016. ‘Regional Fishery Management Organizations and Large Marine Ecosystems’. Environmental Development 17, 202–210.Google Scholar
Carleton, C., Medley, P., Southall, T. & Gill, M. 2010. MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification: St. Helen Pole & Line and Role & Line Tuna Fisheries for Albacore, Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna (Final Report). Scotland, Food Certification International Ltd.Google Scholar
Cashore, B. 2002. ‘Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How Non-State Market-Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule-Making Authority’. Governance 15(4), 503–529.Google Scholar
Christian, C., Ainley, D., Bailey, M., et al. 2013. ‘A Review of Formal Objections to Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Certifications’. Biological Conservation 161 , 10–17.Google Scholar
Cullis-Suzuki, S. & Pauly, D. 2010. ‘Failing the High Seas: A Global Evaluation of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations’. Marine Policy 34(5), 1036–1042.Google Scholar
Daume, S. & Morison, A. 2014. The PNA Western and Central Pacific Unassociated Purse Seine Skipjack Tuna - 2014 3rd Annual Surveillance USA. Emeryville, CA, SCS Global Services.Google Scholar
Daume, S. & Morison, A. 2016. The Parties to the Nauru Agreement Western and Central Pacific Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery: Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) Expedited Principle 1 Assessment. Emeryville, CA, SCS Global Services.Google Scholar
FAO. 1945. Constitution of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Quebec, FAO.Google Scholar
Grafton, Q. R., Arnason, R., Bjørndal, T., et al. 2006. ‘Incentive-based Approaches to Sustainable Fisheries’. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63(3), 699–710.Google Scholar
Green, J. F. 2013. Rethinking Private Authority: Agents and Entrepreneurs in Global Environmental Governance. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. 2010. Transnational Environmental Governance: The Emergence and Effects of the Certification of Forests and Fisheries. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. 2017. ‘Smart Regulation’. In Peter, P. (ed.), Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications. Canberra, ANU Press, 133–148.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. 1999. ‘Regulatory Pluralism: Designing Policy Mixes for Environmental Protection’. Law & Policy 21(1), 49–76.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P.N. & Sinclair, D. 1998. Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. New York, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, J., Berger, A. M., Harley, S., Pilling, G. M. & Davies, N. 2012. Introduction to Harvest Control Rules for WCPO Tuna Fisheries, Manila, WCPFC.MOW1-IP/06.Google Scholar
Harley, S., Davies, N., Hampton, J. & McKechnie, S. 2014a. Stock Assessment of Bigeye Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee - Tenth Regular Session. Majuro, Marshall Islands. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. WCPFC-SC10–2014/SA-WP-01.Google Scholar
Harley, S., Williams, P., Nicol, S. & Hampton, J. 2014b. The Western and Central Pacific Tuna Fishery: 2013 Overview and Status of Stocks. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.Google Scholar
Havice, E. 2010. ‘The Structure of Tuna Access Agreements in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean: Lessons for Vessel Day Scheme Planning’. Marine Policy 34(5), 979–987.Google Scholar
Havice, E. 2013. ‘Rights-based Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishery: Economic and Environmental Change under the Vessel Day Scheme’. Marine Policy 42 , 259–267.Google Scholar
Havice, E. & Campling, L. 2010. ‘Shifting Tides in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishery: The Political Economy of Regulation and Industry Responses’. Global Environmental Politics 10(1), 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilborn, R., Orensanz, J. M. & Parma, A. M. 2005. ‘Institutions, Incentives and the Future of Fisheries’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360(1453), 47–57.Google Scholar
Huntington, T., Anderson, C., Macfadyen, G. & Powers, J. 2009. MSC Assessment Report for Pole and Line Skipjack Fishery in the Maldives. Maldives, Moody Marine Ltd., Version 3.Google Scholar
ICCAT. 2016. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). Madrid, ICCAT, 429.Google Scholar
ICCAT. 2015. Strategic Plan Report: 2015–2020 SCRS Scientific Strategic Plan. Madrid, ICCAT, 21.Google Scholar
ICCAT. 2008. Report of the Independent Review. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Madrid, ICCAT. PLE-106/2008.Google Scholar
IOTC. 2016. Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (Updated November 2016). Seychelles, IOTC, 226.Google Scholar
IOTC. 2016. Report of the 2nd IOTC Performance Review. Seychelles, IOTC, 86. IOTC-2016-PRIOTCO2.Google Scholar
IOTC. 2015. Report of the 19th Session of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Busan, Rep. of Korea, IOTC, 155.Google Scholar
IOTC. 2012. Report of the Fifteenth Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee. Seychelles, IOTC, 288.Google Scholar
IOTC. 1993. Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Rome, IOTC.Google Scholar
Martin, S. M., Cambridge, T. A., Grieve, C., Nimmo, F. M. & Agnew, D. J. 2012. ‘An evaluation of environmental changes within fisheries involved in the Marine Stewardship Council certification scheme’. Reviews in Fisheries Science 20(2), 61–69.Google Scholar
Merino, G., Murua, H., Arrizabalaga, H., et al. 2016. Establishment of reference points and harvest control rules in the Framework of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Specific Contract No. 8 under FRAMEWORK CONTRACT - MARE/2012/21, Brussels, European Commission, 98.Google Scholar
Miller, A. M., Bush, S. R. & van Zwieten, P. A. 2014. ‘Sub-regionalisation of Fisheries Governance: The Case of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fisheries’. Maritime Studies 13(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Nicks, P., Ambrosio, L., Keathinge, M. & DeAlteris, J. 2015. MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification: Echebastar Indian Ocean Purse Seine Skipjack, Yellowfin, and Bigeye Tuna Fishery, F. Department. Edinburgh, Acoura Marine Ltd., 283.Google Scholar
OPAGAC and WWF. 2016. Fishery Improvement Project Work Plan [online] http://awsassets.wwf.es/downloads/opagac_fip_work_plan_final_1.pdf.Google Scholar
Overdevest, C. & Zeitlin, J. 2014. ‘Assembling an Experimentalist Regime: Transnational Governance Interactions in the Forest Sector’, Regulation & Governance 8, 22–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overdevest, C. & Rickenbach, M. G. 2006. ‘Forest certification and institutional governance: An empirical study of forest stewardship council certificate holders in the United States’. Forest Policy and Economics 9(1), 93–102.Google Scholar
Parris, H. 2010. ‘Tuna Dreams and Tuna Realities: Defining the Term “Maximising Economic Returns from the Tuna Fisheries” in Six Pacific Island States’. Marine Policy 34(1), 105–113.Google Scholar
Pentz, B. & Klenk, N. 2017. ‘The “Responsiveness Gap” in RFMOs: The Critical Role of Decision-Making Policies in the Fisheries Management Response to Climate Change’. Ocean & Coastal Management 145, 44–51.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G., Pierre, J. & King, D. S. 2005. ‘The Politics of Path Dependency: Political Conflict in Historical Institutionalism’. The Journal of Politics 67(4), 1275–1300.Google Scholar
Rochette, J., Billé, R., Molenaar, E. J., Drankier, P. & Chabason, L. 2015. ‘Regional Oceans Governance Mechanisms: A Review’. Marine Policy 60, 9–19.Google Scholar
Saunders, P. & Haward, M. 2016. ‘Politics, Science, and Species Protection Law: A Comparative Consideration of Southern and Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’. Ocean Development & International Law 47(4), 348–367.Google Scholar
Scott, I. & Stokes, K. 2014. Expedited P1 Assessment - The Pole & Line Yellowfin Fishery in the Maldives. UK, Intertek Fisheries Certification.Google Scholar
Silva, M., Garcia, D., Maguire, J. J., Blazquez, L. & Povedano, V. 2016. North Atlantic Albacore Artisanal Fishery. Final Report. Madrid, MSC, 250.Google Scholar
Squires, D., Maunder, M., Allen, , et al. 2016. ‘Effort Rights-based Management’. Fish and Fisheries 18(3), 440–465.Google Scholar
Tsamenyi, M., Rajkumar, S. & Manarangi-Trott, L. 2004. ‘The International Legal Regime for Fisheries Management’. Paper presented at the UNEP Workshop on Fisheries Subsidies and Sustainable Fisheries Management, University of Wollongong.Google Scholar
Underdal, A. 1980. The Politics of International Fisheries Management. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
WCPFC. 2015a. ‘Conservation and Management Measure on the Target Reference Point for WCPO Skipjack Tuna’. Commission 12th Regular Session, Bali, Indonesia, WCPFC. CMM 2015–06.Google Scholar
WCPFC. 2015b. ‘Information Paper: Data summaries in support of discussions on the CMMs on tropical tunas (CMM 2013–01 and CMM 2014–01)’. Commission 12th Regular Session, Bali, Indonesia, WCPFC.Google Scholar
WWF. 2016. WWF Retrospective on Indian Ocean Tuna Harvest Control Rules, Unpublished, World Wide Fund for Nature.Google Scholar
Yeeting, A. D., Weikard, H. -P., Bailey, M., Ram-Bidesi, V. & Bush, S. R. 2018. ‘Stabilising cooperation through pragmatic tolerance: The case of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) tuna fishery’. Regional Environmental Change 18(3), 885–897. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-017-1219-0Google Scholar