![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Mesopelagic species, which inhabit depths between 200 to 1000 m, have regained attention as potential new resources to replace and supplement the use of traditionally overfished species. Research and exploratory fishing are ongoing, yet much on the nature of mesopelagic organisms and their roles within ecosystems and the carbon cycle remains to be understood. Building on recent reports and reflecting on fisheries developments, this article examines some of the unique characteristics of the mesopelagic zone and the existing international legal framework to stimulate legal debate on the sustainable management of mesopelagic fish stocks in the high seas.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Bündesministerium für Bildung und Forschung under grant 03F0876C. The author has no competing interests to declare. She thanks Prof. Alexander Proelss for feedback on earlier drafts of this article and the anonymous reviewers, particularly for their points on structure.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action (2020), 47–48, at: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9229en/%20 (accessed 5 January 2024).
2 European Commission, Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Blue Bioeconomy. Situation Report and Perspectives (2018), 6–7 and 54–58, at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/487b1e66-47cc-11ea-b81b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed 5 January 2024); Christopher Costello, Ling Cao, Stefan Gelcich et al., “The Future of Food From the Sea” (2020) 588 Nature 95.
3 For an overview see FAO, Jakob Gjøsæter and Kōichi Kawaguchi, A Review of the World Resources of Mesopelagic Fish (FAO, 1980); A. G. V. Salvanes and J. B. Kristoffersen, “Mesopelagic Fishes” in John H. Steele, Steve A. Thorpe and Karl K. Turekian (eds), Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, vol. 3 (2nd edn, Academic Press, 2001), 1711.
4 Xabier Irigoien, T. A. Klevjer, A. Røstad et al., “Large Mesopelagic Fishes Biomass and Trophic Efficiency in the Open Ocean” (2014) 5 Nature Communications 3271; Roland Proud, Martin J. Cox and Andrew S. Brierley, “Biogeography of the Global Ocean’s Mesopelagic Zone” (2017) 27(1) Current Biology 113; Thomas R. Anderson, Adrian P. Martin, Richard S. Lampitt et al., “Quantifying Carbon Fluxes From Primary Production to Mesopelagic Fish Using a Simple Food Web Model” (2019) 76(3) ICES Journal of Marine Science 690.
5 Anita R. Alvheim, Marian Kjellevold, Espen Strand et al., “Mesopelagic Species and Their Potential Contribution to Food and Feed Security—A Case Study from Norway” (2020) 9(3) Foods 344, 354
6 Raúl Prellezo, “Exploring the Economic Viability of a Mesopelagic Fishery in the Bay of Biscay” (2019) 76(3) ICES Journal of Marine Science 771, 771 and 778; Azza S. Naik, R. D. Whitaker, S. Albrektsen et al., “Mesopelagic Fish Protein Hydrolysates and Extracts: A Source of Novel Anti-Hypertensive and Anti-Diabetic Peptides” (2021) 8 Frontiers in Marine Science 719608.
7 Michael A. St. John, Angel Borja, Guillem Chust et al., “A Dark Hole in Our Understanding of Marine Ecosystems and Their Services: Perspectives from the Mesopelagic Community” (2016) 3 Frontiers in Marine Science 31; Manuel Hidalgo and Howard I. Browman, “Developing the Knowledge Base Needed to Sustainably Manage Mesopelagic Resources” (2019) 76(3) ICES Journal of Marine Science 609.
8 See relatedly Erik J. Molenaar, “Unregulated Deep-Sea Fisheries: A Need for a Multi-Level Approach” (2004) 19(3) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 225.
9 On efforts to develop a mesopelagic fishery see Melina Kourantidou and Di Jin, “Mesopelagic–Epipelagic Fish Nexus in Viability and Feasibility of Commercial‐Scale Mesopelagic Fisheries” (2022) 35(4) Natural Resource Modeling e12350; Slater Payne and Porter Hoagland, “A Twilight Zone Episode: Historical Expansion of the Soviet Union’s Fishing Fleet and the Exploitation of Mesopelagic Fisheries in the Southern Ocean” (2022) 36(1) Ocean Yearbook 526; “The Mesopelagic: Cinderella of the Oceans” 15 April 2017, The Economist at: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2017/04/15/the-mesopelagic-cinderella-of-the-oceans (accessed 5 January 2024).
10 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 397 [hereafter, UNCLOS].
11 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, adopted 4 August 1995, entered into force 11 December 2001, 2167 UNTS 88 [hereafter, UNFSA].
12 Source: https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-2/fisheries/deep-sea-fishing/depth-zones-of-the-ocean (accessed 5 January 2024).
13 Tracey T. Sutton and Rosanna J. Milligan, “Deep-Sea Ecology” in Brian Fath (ed), Encyclopedia of Ecology (2nd edn, Elsevier, 2018), 35, 37.
14 Edith A. Widder, “Bioluminescence in the Ocean: Origins of Biological, Chemical, and Ecological Diversity” (2010) 328 Science 5979.
15 Sutton and Milligan, note 13, 37.
16 Hidalgo and Browman, note 7, 609; Daniel Pauly, Chiara Piroddi, Lincoln Hood et al., “The Biology of Mesopelagic Fishes and Their Catches (1950–2018) by Commercial and Experimental Fisheries” (2021) 9 Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 1057, 1057–1058.
17 M. P. Olivar, Arturo Castellón, Ana Sabatés et al., “Variation in Mesopelagic Fish Community Composition and Structure Between Mediterranean and Atlantic Waters Around the Iberian Peninsula” (2022) 9 Frontiers in Marine Science 1028717.
18 Irigoien, Klevjer, Røstad et al., note 4.
19 Tracey T. Sutton, Alexander P. Hulley, Rupert Wienerroither et al., Identification Guide to the Mesopelagic Fishes of the Central and South East Atlantic Ocean, vol. 1 (FAO, 2020).
20 St. John, Borja, Chust et al., note 7.
21 Thomas J. Webb, Edward Vanden Berghe and Ron O’Dor, “Biodiversity’s Big Wet Secret: The Global Distribution of Marine Biological Records Reveals Chronic Under-Exploration of the Deep Pelagic Ocean” (2010) 5(8) PloS ONE e10223.
22 Paul E. Caiger, Lyndsey S. Lefebve and Joel K. Llopiz, “Growth and Reproduction in Mesopelagic Fishes: A Literature Synthesis” (2021) 78(3) ICES Journal of Marine Science 765.
23 M. P. Olivar, A. Bernal, B. Molí et al., “Vertical Distribution, Diversity and Assemblages of Mesopelagic Fishes in the Western Mediterranean” (2012) 62 Deep-Sea Research I 53.
24 Airam N. Sarmiento-Lezcano, M. Pilar Olivar, Marian Peña et al., “Carbon Remineralization by Small Mesopelagic and Bathypelagic Stomiiforms in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean” (2022) 203 Progress in Oceanography 102787; Lionel Guidi, Louis Legendre, Gabriel Reygondeau et al., “A New Look at Ocean Carbon Remineralization for Estimating Deepwater Sequestration” (2015) 29(7) Global Biogeochemical Cycles 1044; Peter C. Davison, David M. Checkley, Julian A. Koslow et al., “Carbon Export Mediated by Mesopelagic Fishes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean” (2013) 116 Progress in Oceanography 14; A. Yool, E. E. Popova, A. C. Coward et al., “Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Impacts on Lower Trophic Levels and the Export of Organic Carbon to the Deep Ocean” (2013) 10(9) Biogeosciences 5831.
25 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, WHOI Ocean Twilight Zone Project Team, The Ocean Twilight Zone’s Role in Climate Change (2022) at: https://twilightzone.whoi.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Ocean-Twilight-Zones-Role-in-Climate-Change.pdf (accessed 5 January 2023).
26 Graeme C. Hays, “A Review of the Adaptive Significance and Ecosystem Consequences of Zooplankton Diel Vertical Migrations” (2003) 503 Hydrobiologia 163, 163.
27 See generally Johnathan T. Kool, Atte Moilanen and Eric A. Treml, “Population Connectivity: Recent Advances and New Perspectives” (2013) 28 Landscape Ecology 165; Mark H. Carr, Sarah P. Robinson, Charles Wahle et al., “The Central Importance of Ecological Spatial Connectivity to Effective Coastal Marine Protected Areas and to Meeting the Challenges of Climate Change in the Marine Environment” (2017) 27(51) Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 6.
28 Elina A. Virtanen, Atte Moilanen and Markku Viitasalo, “Marine Connectivity in Spatial Conservation Planning: Analogues From the Terrestrial Realm” (2020) 35 Landscape Ecology 1022.
29 IPCC, IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (Cambridge University Press, 2019), 12; Briannyn Woods, Rowan Trebilco, Andrea Walters et al., “Myctobase, a Circumpolar Database of Mesopelagic Fishes for New Insights Into Deep Pelagic Prey Fields” (2022) 9 Sci Data 404.
30 Isaac Brito-Morales, David S. Schoeman, Jason D. Everett et al., “Towards Climate-Smart, Three-Dimensional Protected Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in the High Seas” (2022) 12 Nature Climate Change 402, 402.
31 Isaac Brito-Morales, David S. Schoeman, Jorge G. Molinos et al., “Climate Velocity Reveals Increasing Exposure of Deep-Ocean Biodiversity to Future Warming” (2020) 10 Nature Climate Change 576, 579; Brad A. Seibel and Karen F. Wishner, “The Significance of Ocean Deoxygenation for Mesopelagic Communities” in D. Laffoley and J. M. Baxter (eds), Ocean Deoxygenation: Everyone’s Problem. Causes, Impacts, Consequences and Solutions (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2019) 265.
32 Gabriella Ljungström, Tom J. Langbehn and Christian Jørgensen, “Light and Energetics at Seasonal Extremes Limit Poleward Range Shifts” (2021) 11(6) Nature Climate Change 530; Tom J. Langbehn, Dag L. Aksnes, Stein Kaartvedt et al., “Poleward Distribution of Mesopelagic Fishes Is Constrained by Seasonality in Light” (2022) 31(3) Global Ecology and Biogeography 546.
33 Hidalgo and Browman, note 7, 613.
34 Alexander Proelss and Katherine Houghton, “Protecting Marine Species” in Rosemary Rayfuse (ed), Research Handbook on International Marine Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2015), 229, 230–231.
35 UNCLOS, Arts 2(1), 49(1), 56(1)(a), 56(3), and 77.
36 UNCLOS, Arts 87(1)(e) and 116.
37 UNCLOS, Arts 117–119.
38 See further Robin Churchill, Vaughan Lowe and Amy Sander, The Law of the Sea (4th edn, Manchester University Press, 2022), 608–627.
39 Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, [70].
40 PCA, Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Award, 18 March 2015, [538], in which the Tribunal holds that Art 194 UNCLOS “extends to measures focussed primarily on conservation and the preservation of ecosystems.”
41 PCA, South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China), Award, 12 July 2016, [945].
42 Ibid, [941]. See related analysis in Chie Kojima, “South China Sea Arbitration and the Protection of the Marine Environment: Evolution of UNCLOS Part XII Through Interpretation and the Duty to Cooperate” (2017) 21 Asian Yearbook of International Law 166.
43 South China Sea Arbitration, note 41, [945].
44 Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993, 1760 UNTS 79 [hereafter, CBD]. On the broader interactions between UNCLOS and the CBD, see, e.g., Rüdiger Wolfrum and Nele Matz, “The Interplay of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity” (2000) 4 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 445.
45 In detail, see Rozemarijn J. Roland Holst, Change in the Law of the Sea: Context, Mechanisms and Practice (Brill, 2022), 221–225.
46 Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons And Entities With Respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011, ITLOS Reports 2001, [117].
47 Holst, note 45, 222; see also case references therein.
48 UNCLOS, Arts 117–118.
49 See further, e.g., Erik J. Molenaar, “Regional Fisheries Management Organizations” in Marta Chantal Ribeiro, Fernando Loureiro Bastos and Tore Henriksen (eds), Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea (Springer, 2020), 82.
50 See subsection “RFMO/As and Emerging Mesopelagic Fisheries.”
51 See section “Deep-Sea Fisheries and Midwater Ecosystems.”
52 UNFSA, Art 2 states its objective as “the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.”
53 UNCLOS, Arts 63, 64, 66, and 67.
54 UNCLOS, Art 68.
55 Daniel Owen, “Annex I” in Alexander Proelss (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea⸻A Commentary (C. H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, 2017), 2049, 2062, with reference to including squid and krill (possibly mesopelagic) raised in Patricia Birnie, Alan Boyle and Catherine Redgwell, International Law and the Environment (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2009), 722.
56 David Anderson, “Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks,” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law at: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1225 (accessed 5 January 2024).
57 James Harrison and Elisa Morgera, “Article 64” in Proless (ed), note 55, 513, 516.
58 Holst, note 45, 108.
59 UNFSA, Article 5 lists general principles, expanded upon in subsequent provisions.
60 UNFSA, Art 6(2).
61 UNFSA, Art 6(3)(a).
62 UNFSA, Art 5(c)–(d). See further Churchill, Lowe and Sander, note 38, 565. Considering the general obligations in Part XII of UNCLOS and the obligation to account for the interdependence of stocks, UNCLOS itself also calls for an ecosystem approach, as raised in James Harrison, Saving the Oceans Through Law: The International Legal Framework for the Protection of the Marine Environment (Oxford University Press, 2017), 173.
63 Including those listed in UNFSA, Article 6(3)(c) as “size and productivity of the stocks, reference points, stock condition in relation to such reference points, levels and distribution of fishing mortality and the impact of fishing activities on non-target and associated or dependent species, as well as existing and predicted oceanic, environmental and socio-economic conditions.”
64 UNFSA, Annex II, [1] defines a precautionary reference point as “an estimated value derived through an agreed scientific procedure, which corresponds to the state of the resource and of the fishery, and which can be used as a guide for fisheries management.”
65 UNFSA, Annex II, [6].
66 UNFSA, Annex II, [6].
67 UNFSA, Art 6(6).
68 Glen Wright, Kristina Gjerde, Aria Finkelstein et al., “Fishing in the Twilight Zone: Illuminating Governance Challenges at the Next Fisheries Frontier” (2020) IDDRI, at: https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/study/fishing-twilight-zone-illuminating-governance-challenges-next (accessed 5 January 2024).
69 Pacific Fishery Management Council, Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 1, at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/fisheries-west-coast-states-comprehensive-ecosystem-based-amendment-1-amendments-fishery (accessed 5 January 2024).
70 Wright, Gjerde, Finkelstein et al., note 68, 16–17.
71 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, adopted 3 October 2018, entered into force 25 June 2021 [hereafter, CAOFA].
72 CAOFA, Preamble, [2].
73 Erik J. Molenaar, “The CAOF Agreement: Key Issues of International Fisheries Law” in Tomas Heidar (ed), New Knowledge and Changing Circumstances in the Law of the Sea (Brill, 2020), 447.
74 CAOFA, Art 2. For background see Erik J. Molenaar, “The Oslo Declaration on High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean” (2015) Arctic Yearbook 427; Dan Liu, “The 2015 Oslo Declaration on Arctic High Seas Fisheries: The Starting Point Towards Future Fisheries Management in the Central Arctic Ocean” (2017) Arctic Yearbook 1.
75 Valentin Schatz, Alexander Proelss and Nengye Liu, “The 2018 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean: A Critical Analysis” (2019) 34(2) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 195, 244.
76 CAOFA, Art 3(1).
77 CAOFA, Art 4(2).
78 CAOFA, Art 5(1).
79 CAOFA, Arts 3(1)–3(3).
80 CAOFA, Art 5(1)(c)(i).
81 CAOFA, Art 5(1)(c)(ii).
82 Nengye Liu, Alexander Proelss and Valentin Schatz, “Regulating Exceptions for Research and Exploratory Fishing in Southern Ocean Marine Protected Areas: A Comparative Analysis on Balancing Conservation and Commercial Use” (2022) 53 Ocean Development & International Law 60, 79.
83 The Press Release of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) concerning the 14–17 March 2023 meeting of the CAOFA Scientific Coordinating Group reports that Inuit participated through national delegations to “contribute a holistic and balanced approach to understanding the Arctic ecosystems which considers the entire food chain, potential impacts to Inuit food security, and recognizes that Inuit are a part of Arctic ecosystems.” Source: https://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/news/inuit-delegates-with-strong-presence-at-central-arctic-ocean-fisheries-agreement-scientific-coordinating-group-meeting (accessed 5 January 2024). The Framework for the Joint Program of Scientific Research and Monitoring (JPSRM), adopted in June 2023 at the 2nd Conference of the Parties to CAOFA (on file with author) includes Indigenous knowledge in its research plan. It also recalls that the CAOFA “recognizes the importance of involving Indigenous peoples and local peoples who live in coastal communities that depend on the bordering seas of the Agreement Area” and states that the “JPSRM will follow an ecosystem approach to assess [inter alia] the potential impacts of commercial fisheries on Arctic Indigenous communities and local communities that depend on marine ecosystems for sustainable subsistence harvests.”
84 Source: https://oceana.org/press-releases/small-fish-win-big-protections-us-pacific-ocean (accessed 5 January 2024).
85 The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act § 600.305(d)(13) refers to “ecosystem component species” as those stocks determined not to require conservation and management but included to achieve ecosystem management objectives.
86 Pacific Fishery Management Council, note 70.
87 Laura E. Koehn, Timothy E. Essington, Kristin N. Marshall et al., “Trade-Offs Between Forage Fish Fisheries and Their Predators in the California Current” (2017) 74(9) ICES Journal of Marine Science 2448, 2449; Sally Dowd, Melissa Chapman, Laura E. Koehn et al., “The Economic Tradeoffs and Ecological Impacts Associated With a Potential Mesopelagic Fishery in the California Current” (2022) 32(4) Ecological Applications e2578.
88 CAOFA, Article 1(e) defines exploratory fishing as “fishing for the purpose of assessing the sustainability and feasibility of future commercial fisheries by contributing to scientific data relating to such fisheries.”
89 This came in the form of an internal strategy/concept note known as “Mesopelagic initiative: Unleashing new marine resources for a growing human population” (2017), which “was presented for authorities in Norway to promote a wide cross sectoral cooperation in terms of developing the knowledge basis for a sustainable value chain based on harvest of mesopelagic resources.” Email correspondence between the author and Program Director Bjørn Erik Axelsen at the Institute of Marine Research (31 May 2023).
90 Dag Standal and Eduardo Grimaldo, “Institutional Nuts and Bolts for a Mesopelagic Fishery in Norway” (2020) 119 Marine Policy 104043, 2. See further Eduardo Grimaldo, Leif Grimsmo, Paula Alvarez et al., “Investigating the Potential for a Commercial Fishery in the Northeast Atlantic Utilizing Mesopelagic Species” (2020) 77 ICES Journal of Marine Science 2541.
91 European Commission, note 2, 17.
92 Ibid, 55–56. See also those research activities listed in Wright, Gjerde, Finkelstein et al., note 68, 19; Caiger, Lefebve and Llopiz, note 22.
93 Standal and Grimaldo, note 90, 2–3.
94 Dag Standal and Eduardo Grimaldo, “Lost in Translation? Practical and Scientific Input to the Mesopelagic Fisheries Discourse” (2021) 134 Marine Policy 104785.
95 Standal and Grimaldo, note 90, 5.
96 The majority being deep-sea pearlside (Maurolicus muelleri) with krill as the main bycatch, as detailed in Kristian Fjeld, Rachel Tiller, Eduardo Grimaldo et al., “Mesopelagics—New Gold Rush or Castle in the Sky?” (2023) 147 Marine Policy 105361.
97 UNFSA, Annex II, [6]; UNFSA, Art 6(6).
98 See, e.g., Olav S. Stokke, “Management Options for High Seas Fisheries: Making Regime Complexes More Effective” in Richard Caddell and Erik J. Molenaar (eds), Strengthening International Fisheries Law in an Era of Changing Oceans (Hart, 2019) 51.
99 Kristina M. Gjerde, Glen Wright and Carole Durussel, Strengthening High Seas Governance Through Enhanced Environmental Assessment Processes: A Case Study of Mesopelagic Fisheries and Options for a Future BBNJ Treaty (2021), at: https://www.prog-ocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Gjerde-K.M.-Wright-G.-and-Durussel-C.-Strengthening-high-seas-governance-through-enhanced-environmental-assessment-processes.pdf (accessed 5 January 2024); the authors address environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments, and regional environmental assessments.
100 Since adopted by the Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, as Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (New York, 19 June 2023, not yet in force). Text at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/Ch_XXI_10.pdf (accessed 5 January 2024).
101 Gjerde, Wright and Durussel, note 99, 49.
102 Ibid, 9. Further on incorporating social and cultural impacts in assessments see Julia Nakamura, Daniela Diz and Elisa Morgera, “International Legal Requirements for Environmental and Socio-Cultural Assessments for Large-Scale Industrial Fisheries” (2022) 31(3) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 336.
103 See, e.g., R. I. Perry, Philippe Cury, Keith Brander et al., “Sensitivity of Marine Systems to Climate and Fishing: Concepts, Issues and Management Responses” (2010) 79 Journal of Marine Systems 427; William W. L. Cheung, Vicky W. Y. Law, Yoshitaka Ota et al., “Modelling Future Oceans: The Present and Emerging Future of Fish Stocks and Fisheries” in Richard Caddell and Erik J. Molenaar (eds), Strengthening International Fisheries Law in an Era of Changing Oceans (Hart, 2019) 13; Yoshinobu Takei, “Climate Change and High Seas Fisheries” in Jan McDonald, Jeffrey McGee and Richard Barnes (eds), Research Handbook on Climate Change, Oceans and Coasts (Edward Elgar, 2020) 114; Camille Goodman, Ruth Davis, Kamal Azmi et al., “Enhancing Cooperative Responses by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations to Climate-Driven Redistribution of Tropical Pacific Tuna Stocks” (2022) 9 Frontiers in Marine Science 1046018; Siddharth Shekhar Yadav and Kristina Maria Gjerde, “The Ocean, Climate Change and Resilience: Making Ocean Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction More Resilient to Climate Change and Other Anthropogenic Activities” (2020) 122 Marine Policy 104184; Catherine Blanchard, Carole Durussel and Ben Boteler, “Socio-Ecological Resilience and the Law: Exploring the Adaptive Capacity of the BBNJ Agreement” 109 Marine Policy 103612.
104 IPCC, note 29; Lisa A. Levin and Nadine Le Bris, “The Deep Ocean Under Climate Change” (2015) 350(6262) Science 766.
105 Gjerde, Wright and Durussel, note 99, 16; Grace K. Saba, Adrian B. Burd, John P. Dunne et al., “Toward a Better Understanding of Fish‐Based Contribution to Ocean Carbon Flux” (2021) 66(5) Limnology and Oceanography 1639; Maartje Oostdijk, Laura G. Elsler, Paulina Ramírez-Monsalve et al., “Governing Open Ocean and Fish Carbon: Perspectives and Opportunities” (2022) 9 Frontiers in Marine Science 764609.
106 Cheung, Law, Ota et al., note 103, 15–21.
107 FAO, International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas, adopted on 29 August 2008 [hereafter, Guidelines] at: https://www.fao.org/in-action/vulnerable-marine-ecosystems/background/deep-sea-guidelines/en (accessed 5 January 2024).
108 Telmo Morato, Reg Watson, Tony J. Pitcher et al., “Fishing Down the Deep” (2006) 7 Fish and Fisheries 24, 25. For a detailed legal analysis see Richard Caddell, “Deep-Sea Bottom Fisheries and the Protection of Seabed Ecosystems: Problems, Progress and Prospects” in Catherine Banet (ed), The Law of the Seabed (Brill, 2020), 255.
109 J. A. Koslow, G. W. Boehlert, J. D. Gordon et al., “Continental Slope and Deep-Sea Fisheries: Implications for a Fragile Ecosystem” (2000) 57 ICES Journal of Marine Science 548, 549.
110 At different points, the FAO has referred to deep-sea fisheries as occurring at depths below 200 m or 500 m. See further Gabriela A. Oanta, “The European Union’s Reform of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the North-East Atlantic” (2017) 32(3) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 589, 592.
111 E.g., in its review of bottom fisheries developed in connection with the Guidelines, the FAO includes fisheries conducted below 200 m, “on continental slopes or isolated oceanic topographic structures such as seamounts, ridge systems and banks” as addressed in Alexis Bensch, Matthew Gianni, Dominique Gréboval et al., Worldwide Review of Bottom Fisheries in the ç (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 522, Rev.1., 2 (2009) at: https://www.fao.org/3/i1116e/i1116e01.pdf (accessed 5 January 2023).
112 UNCLOS, Article 77(4) defines sedentary species as “organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil.”
113 See David Freestone and Kristina Gjerde, “Unfinished Business: Deep-Sea Fisheries and the Conservation of Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, Editors’ Introduction” (2004) 19(3) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 209.
114 Ibid. Gabriela A. Oanta, “International Organizations and Deep-Sea Fisheries: Current Status and Future Prospects” (2018) 87 Marine Policy 51; Caddell, note 106.
115 Richard Caddell, “International Fisheries Law and Interactions With Global Regimes and Processes” in Richard Caddell and Erik J. Molenaar (eds), Strengthening International Fisheries Law in an Era of Changing Oceans (Hart, 2019), 133, 140–145.
116 Source: https://savethehighseas.org/deep-sea-fishing/the-main-players (accessed 5 January 2024)
117 Zaira Da Ros, Antonio Dell’Anno, Telmo Morato et al., “The Deep Sea: The New Frontier for Ecological Restoration” (2019) 108 Marine Policy 103642.
118 Caddell, note 108, 260.
119 UNGA Resolution 61/105, Sustainable Fisheries, Including Through the 1995 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 (8 December 2006) [hereafter, UNGA Resolution 61/105].
120 Guidelines, [1].
121 UNGA Resolution 61/105, [80, 83–84].
122 UNGA Resolution 61/105, [87].
123 UNGA Resolution 61/105, [85].
124 Guidelines, [11]. The meaning and determination of “significant adverse impacts” is detailed in the Guidelines, [17–20].
125 See further Lene Korseberg, “The Law-Making Effects of the FAO Deep-Sea Fisheries Guidelines” (2018) 67 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 801, 804–806.
126 Guidelines, [8].
127 Ibid.
128 FAO, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, adopted 31 October 1995, [7.5].
129 Guidelines, [12].
130 Guidelines, [65].
131 Guidelines, [23].
132 Guidelines, [23].
133 Richard Caddell, “Precautionary Management and the Development of Future Fishing Opportunities: The International Regulation of New and Exploratory Fisheries” (2018) 33 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 199, 252.
134 Guidelines, [14].
135 The zonal approach and its underlying principles are linked to multiple challenges and shortcomings, addressed in Yoshifumi Tanaka, “Zonal and Integrated Management Approaches to Ocean Governance: Reflections on a Dual Approach in International Law of the Sea” (2004) 19 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 483, 486; Malin L. Pinsky, Gabriel Reygondeau, Richard Caddell et al., “Preparing Ocean Governance for Species on the Move” (2018) 360 (6394) Science 1189.
136 Bethan C. O’Leary and Callum M. Roberts, “Ecological Connectivity Across Ocean Depths: Implications for Protected Area Design” (2018) 15 Global Ecology and Conservation e00431.
137 Ibid, 2.
138 Deep-Ocean Stewardship Initiative, Fisheries Working Group Report, A Review of Impact Assessments for Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas: Against the FAO Deep-Sea Fisheries Guidelines (2020), 20, at: https://www.dosi-project.org/wp-content/uploads/Fisheries-Working-Group-2022-Report.pdf (accessed 5 January 2024).
139 See, e.g., Noam Levin, Salit Kark and Roberto Danovaro, “Adding the Third Dimension to Marine Conservation” (2018) 11 Conservation Letters e12408.
140 Deep-Ocean Stewardship Initiative, note 138, 33.
141 Karen N. Scott, “Area-Based Protection Beyond National Jurisdiction” (2019) 4 Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy 158, 160.
142 James Harrison, “Key Challenges Relating to the Governance of Regional Fisheries” in Richard Caddell and Erik J. Molenaar (eds), Strengthening International Fisheries Law in an Era of Changing Oceans (Hart, 2019), 79.
143 UNFSA, Art 10. See Molenaar, note 49, 89.
144 The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC), the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO), Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA), the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). Source: https://www.fao.org/in-action/vulnerable-marine-ecosystems/background/regional-fishery-bodies/zh (accessed 5 January 2024).
145 Caddell, note 133, 202. Risks concerning experimental fishing have also been acknowledged by the ITLOS, which has held that states pursuing such programs must cooperate effectively and “act with prudence and caution” so as not to cause further threat, in Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases, note 39, [77].
146 UNFSA, Art 6(6). These requirements have been adapted by regulatory bodies for purposes beyond the management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks; see ibid, 202.
147 Guidelines, [23, 65].
148 Liu, Proelss and Schatz, note 82, 62.
149 Ibid, 81.
150 In the section “Testing the Waters.”
151 CAOFA, Arts 3(3) and 5(d).
152 Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, adopted 14 November 2009, entered into force 24 August 2012, 2899 UNTS 211 [hereafter, SPRFMO Convention].
153 SPRFMO Convention, Art 22(1).
154 SPRFMO Convention, Arts 22(3)–22(3).
155 CMM 13-2021 Management of New and Exploratory Fisheries in the SPRFMO Convention Area. The earliest version of CMM 13 was adopted in 2016 as CMM 4.13. All SPRFMO CMMs mentioned are available at: https://www.sprfmo.int/fisheries/conservation-and-management-measures (accessed 5 January 2024).
156 SPRFMO, CMM 14a-2022 Conservation and Management Measure for Exploratory Fishing for Toothfish by New Zealand-Flagged Vessels in the SPRFMO Convention Area.
157 CMM 14e-2023 Exploratory Fishing for Toothfish by European Union-Flagged Vessels in the SPRFMO Convention Area.
158 SPRFMO Convention, Art 3(2)(b).
159 Marta Soeffker, Philip R. Hollyman, Martin A. Collins et al., “Contrasting Life-History Traits of Two Toothfish (Dissostichus spp.) Species at Their Range Edge Around the South Sandwich Islands” (2022) Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 201.
160 Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in Northeast Atlantic Fisheries, adopted 18 November 1980, entered into force 17 March 1982, 1285 UNTS 129 [hereafter, NEAFC Convention].
161 Source: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/bfw/NEAFC__2022.pdf (accessed 5 January 2024).
Further on NEAFC actions regarding the implementation of UNGA Resolutions 61/105, 64/72, and 66/68 until 2020 see Susanna Fuller, Duncan Currie, Matthew Gianni et al., “Halting and Reversing Biodiversity Loss in the Deep” (2020) Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, available at: https://savethehighseas.org/resources/publications/preventing-biodiversity-loss-in-the-deep-sea-a-critique-of-compliance-by-high-seas-fishing-nations-and-rfmos-with-global-environmental-commitments (accessed 5 January 2024).
162 NEAFC, “The NEAFC approach to conservation and management of deep-sea species and categorization of deep-sea species/stocks” (2016) at: https://www.neafc.org/system/files/NEAFC_approach_to_DSS_conservation-and-management_Nov16.pdf (accessed 5 January 2024).
163 Recommendation 19:2014 on area management measures for the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the NEAFC Regulatory Area, as amended at: https://www.neafc.org/system/files/Recommendation-19-2014-VME-protection-as-amended-by-Rec-09-2015-Rec-10-2018-Rec-10-2021-Rec-06-and-07-2023.pdf (accessed 5 January 2024).
164 Recommendation 19:2014, Arts 5–6.
165 Fuller, Currie, Gianni et al., note 161, 7.
166 European Commission, note 2, 17.
167 Eduardo Grimaldo, Leif Grimsmo, Marthe Schei et al., “Experimental Fishery and Utilization of Mesopelagic Fish Species and Krill in the Northeast Atlantic—NEAFC RA 1 Reykjanes Ridge Area” (2018), at: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17407.10402 (accessed 5 January 2024), documents that “more than 30 mesopelagic species were caught [and] Maurolicus muelleri, Benthosema glaciale and krill were the three most abundant.”
168 Email correspondence between the author and NEAFC Secretary (14 February 2023).
169 Henrik Österblom and Carl Folke, “Globalization, Marine Regime Shifts and the Soviet Union” (2015) 370 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 1659; Payne and Hoagland, note 9.
170 CCAMLR, Krill Fishery Report 2017 (2017), at: https://www.ccamlr.org/en/system/files/00%20KRI48%202017.pdf (accessed 5 January 2024).
171 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, adopted 20 May 1980, entered into force 7 April 1982, 1329 UNTS 47 [hereafter, CAMLR Convention].
172 See, e.g., Denzil Miller, Eugene Sabourenkov and David Ramm, “Managing Antarctic Marine Living Resources: The CCAMLR Approach” (2004) 19(3) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 317; Keith Reid, “Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR): Implementation of Conservation of Southern Ocean Marine Living Resources” in Nengye Liu, Cassandra Brooks and Tianbao Qin (eds), Governing Marine Living Resources in the Polar Regions (Edward Elgar, 2019), 30.
173 CCAMLR, Conservation Measure 199/XIX (2000) Precautionary Catch Limit for Electrona carlsbergi in Statistical Subarea 48.3 in the 2000/01 Season. All CCAMLR CMMs mentioned are listed at: https://cm.ccamlr.org/en (accessed 5 January 2024).
174 Jennifer J. Freer, Geraint A. Tarling, Martin A. Collins et al., “Predicting Future Distributions of Lanternfish, a Significant Ecological Resource Within the Southern Ocean” (2019) 25 Diversity and Distributions 1259.
175 Chunlin Liu, Chi Zhang, Yang Liu et al., “Age and Growth of Antarctic Deep-Sea Smelt (Bathylagus antarcticus), an Important Mesopelagic Fish in the Southern Ocean” (2022) 201 Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 105122.
176 Source: https://www.ccamlr.org/en/fisheries/fisheries (accessed 5 January 2024).
177 CAMLR Convention, Art II (2).
178 CAMLR Convention, Art II (3)(a)–(c).
179 In detail see Karen N. Scott, “MPAs in the Southern Ocean Under CCAMLR” (2021) 9 Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law 84.
180 CCAMLR, Conservation Measure 91-05 (2016) Ross Sea Region Marine Protected Area.
181 See, e.g., Erik Franckx and Koen van den Bossche, “The Influence of Environmental Law on the Development of the Law of the Sea: CITES and the International Law of Fisheries” (2011) 54 Japanese Yearbook of International Law 218; Erik Franckx, “The Relationship Between CITES, FAO and Related Agreements: Legal Issues” (2011) FAO at: https://www.fao.org/3/i1976e/i1976e00.pdf (accessed 5 January 2024).
182 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted 3 March 1973 entered into force 1 July 1975, 993 UNTS 243 [hereafter, CITES].
183 CITES, Art 1(c).
184 CITES, Art 1(e).
185 Hugh P. Possingham, Sandy J. Andelman, Mark A. Burgman et al., “Limits to the Use of Threatened Species Lists” (2002) 17(11) Trends in Ecology and Evolution 503; Proelss and Houghton, note 34, 247–248.
186 Xuechan Ma, “An Economic and Legal Analysis of Trade Measures Against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing” (2020) 117 Marine Policy 103980.
187 According to Article XV of CITES any party may propose to amend Appendices I and II and amendments shall be adopted by two-thirds majority. Potentially more relevant to mesopelagic species, according to Article XVI of CITES, “Any Party may at any time submit to the Secretariat a list of species which it identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction, for the purpose mentioned in paragraph 3 of Article II,” i.e., to prevent/restrict exploitation and with need of state cooperation to control trade.
188 Laura Little and Marco A. Orellana, “Can CITES Play a Role in Solving the Problem of IUU Fishing? The Trouble with Patagonian Toothfish” (2004) 16 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 21; Phaedra Doukakis, E. C. M. Parsons, William C. G. Burns et al., “Gaining Traction: Retreading the Wheels of Marine Conservation” (2009) 23 Conservation Biology 841, 843.
189 D.G. Webster, “The Irony and the Exclusivity of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Management” (2011) 35(2) Marine Policy 249.
190 Erik J. Molenaar, “CCAMLR and Southern Ocean Fisheries” (2001) 16 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 465, 473. See also Franckx and van den Bossche, note 181, 258.
191 E.g., the basking shark is listed under CITES Appendix II and interacts with the mesopelagic zone, as shown in Matthias Schaber, Sven Gastauer, Boris Cisewski et al., “Extensive Oceanic Mesopelagic Habitat Use of a Migratory Continental Shark Species” (2022) 12 Scientific Reports 2047.