ONLINE CURRENTS VOL3 - Flipbook - Page 18
CCAMLR, interestingly, is applauded by proponents as one of the more successful examples
for marine stock management, as it employs an ecosystem approach informed by
evidence-based data on organisms and geophysics, to define catch limits, demarcate
marine protected areas (MPA), and legislate constantly evolving ‘conservation measures’. 35
Notwithstanding the isolated nature of Antarctica, the conservation perspective hinges
almost completely on the will of vessels to follow conservation measures, a dynamic that
ultimately leaves conservation contingent on the seamless functioning of two fundamental
bottlenecks: integrity and consensus.
Fishing data, which the CCAMLR model is centered around, is collected by independent
fishery observers and the vessel itself. CCAMLR uses an international observer program where observers are required to be of different nationality to the flag state of the vessel - that
is 100% mandatory for toothfish fishing, and, as of 2021, 100% mandatory for krill fishing too.
The use of these observers, however, presents the complications previously highlighted.
Critics have further pointed out that the CCAMLR program can only truly be effective if
observers have strong protection rights, and that they “do not fear threats or physical
intimidation that may force them to falsify or misreport data and collude with illegal fishers”.36
So, in the perspective of environmental advocacy, integrity is a vital aspect in creating
conservation successes. The evidence to suggest the occurrence of observer complications
within CCAMLR jurisdiction is scant, but there is also little to imply there are necessary
protections in place which ensures appropriate evidence gathering.
Equally, in a global climate starved of consensus, the function of CCAMLR is by no means
dissimilar in its problems. Achieving consensus has been considered a bottleneck to the
conservation successes of CCAMLR with experts describing it as “an ‘Achilles’ heel’ and a
potential structural weakness [of CCAMLR]”.
37
The contention surrounding MPAs, specifically
how they are demarcated, is often the grounds for debate amongst state members. Where
dissenting voices generally question the conservation-based credentials of MPA designation
instead being based on geopolitical and national motivations. 38 In other words, the subtext is
about ownership and access to resources, not about best protection of said resources.
Additionally, in what environmentalists refer to as a clear conflict of interest, the demarcation
of MPAs is greatly influenced by the same nations who also claim sovereignty over regions
that overlap in MPAs - known as Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs).
18
