The adoption of the official text of the BBNJ Agreement is one of the most eye-catching events in the field of international ocean governance at this stage, and it is of great significance to fill the gap in the global system and rules for the conservation of marine biodiversity beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Although the BBNJ Agreement does not directly provide for the regulation of high seas fisheries in the official texts that have been adopted, it is not clear that there is a close logical link between the conservation of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction and the international governance of high seas fisheries. Therefore, in view of the shortcomings of the current legal system for the international governance of high seas fisheries, including overfishing, management of migratory fisheries and the settlement of corresponding disputes, which are reflected in the typical cases, it is possible to consider the beneficial inspiration of the relevant provisions of the BBNJ Agreement to coordinate the development of the legal system for the international governance of high seas fisheries by restricting overfishing, improving the management tools of zoning areas, improving the environmental impact assessment mechanism and strengthening global cooperation.
1. The current legal regime for the international governance of fisheries on the high seas and the BBNJ Agreement
(1) The current legal system for the international governance of fisheries on the high seas
The current legal system for the international governance of high seas fisheries is based on the institutional rules of global and regional fisheries conventions under the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and relies on the specific practices of global and regional fisheries organizations. The current global fisheries convention is mainly the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions <联合国海洋法公约>for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Species and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "Implementation Agreement"), signed in August 1995 and entered into force on 11 December 2001. The agreement marks the end of traditional freedom of fishing on the high seas and the beginning of an era of total management of high seas fisheries. The relevant regional fishery organizations and coastal States are in the process of adjusting and modifying their original management measures or formulating new provisions in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, so that the Implementation Agreement has become the most important international fisheries law in the management of high seas and distant-water fisheries in the twenty-first century. Representative regional conventions include the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources on the High Seas of the South Pacific, the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific, the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, the International Convention for Tuna in the Indian Ocean, and the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific. In addition, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries has been accompanied by normative documents, such as the International Plan of Action for the Reduction of Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fishing, the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, the International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, and the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. These documents, while non-binding, are the product of national consultations, and the international consensus and general principles they reflect may be incorporated into international treaties in the future.
In addition, in order to further strengthen the management of global fishery resources, and to implement the implementation of the above conventions or documents, global and regional fisheries organizations have been established. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), established on October 16, 1945, is the first permanent specialized agency within the United Nations system. The sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources, including fish stocks and their associated species, is one of FAO's priorities. FAO has developed a number of international instruments in the field of fisheries, many of which address biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Regional Fisheries Bodies (RFBs) are organizations through which countries can cooperate in fisheries conservation, management and development, such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) in the Atlantic; The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in the Western and Central Pacific. Their mandate is diverse, ranging from advisory services to Member States to advise and coordinate with them. At present, there are more than 50 regional fishery bodies in the world, including not only regional fishery organizations established under the leadership of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, but also those established outside its framework, which have made important efforts for the sustainable development of high seas fisheries under the coordination of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and have become the main promoters of the conservation and utilization of high seas fishery resources.
(2) BBNJ Agreement
Seventy-one percent of the Earth's surface area is oceans, of which about 64 percent are in the global commons, excluding national exclusive economic zones, territorial seas, internal waters, or archipelagic waters of archipelagic states. In accordance with the Convention on the High Seas as amended by the United Nations in Geneva in 1958, the high seas are open to all States, and no State may claim any part of the high seas within its sovereignty. Coastal states as well as non-coastal states enjoy high seas freedoms, including freedom of navigation, freedom of fishing, freedom of laying submarine cables and pipelines, and freedom of flight over the high seas. The abundant biodiversity resources contained in the high seas have made it the object of interest grabbing by many countries, and the unrestrained exploitation of marine resources has always been an inescapable problem facing the global advocacy of sustainable resource development. Therefore, how to develop and conserve this public sea area, and how to use its biodiversity resources sustainably and equitably, has also become a key issue in global ocean governance, and BBNJ has also developed from this.
BBNJ (Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction) is an international agreement, the full name of which is the Agreement on Marine Biodiversity beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction. In 2004, the United Nations General Assembly established the Working Group on Marine Diversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction, whose main work is to conduct surveys on scientific, technological, economic, legal, environmental and other social activities, and to help countries around the world carry out investigation and research, with a view to promoting international exchanges and cooperation. The 2022 BBNJ Conference was held in New York in August, and the negotiations on the BBNJ Agreement focused on four of the most important issues currently governing the governance of maritime areas beyond national jurisdiction – marine genetic resources and their benefit-sharing, area-based management measures (e.g., marine protected areas), environmental impact assessment, capacity building, and marine technology transfer.
Among them, marine genetic resources refer to the genetic information of marine organisms, which can not only explore the origin of life, study the marine environment and climate change laws, but also play a huge role in promoting the development of chemical pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, nutrition, aquaculture, biomaterials, biomedicine and other industries, and see optimistic prospects in economic and sustainable development. Capacity-building and transfer of marine technology is focused on improving the development of developing countries, and given the differences in the economic and scientific and technological levels of countries, the BBNJ agreement hopes to develop an effective legal treaty to strengthen scientific cooperation, capacity-building, information exchange and technical assistance among countries, to ensure that all countries receive the necessary support and financial resources to facilitate the exploration, development, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity resources in seas beyond national jurisdiction in order to fulfil their obligations under the treaty.
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an assessment of the potential environmental impact of a project or development plan that is about to begin. Article 61 of the existing United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation of biological resources already contains relevant provisions that require States parties to ensure that the maintenance of biological resources in their exclusive economic zones is not jeopardized by overexploitation through proper conservation and management measures, taking into account sound scientific evidence. However, this article only makes provisions in principle, and if we want to implement measures to conserve biological resources, protect the environment and reduce impacts, the rules and regulations of environmental impact assessment still need to be comprehensively revised.
Area-based management measures are designed to accelerate the development of marine protected areas on a global scale. Leaders across industries and fields, as well as scientists, are making a strong call to advance the Aichi 30X30 target of protecting at least 30% of the world's oceans by 2030. Globally, the construction of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is gaining momentum. Currently, 7.93% of the ocean is protected. However, in contrast, as an important habitat for marine life, especially some endangered species, the high seas are protected at a very low rate of only 1.18%, and there are no effective international regulations and treaties that can help promote and regulate the establishment of marine protected areas in the high seas. The mission of protecting the high seas still has a long way to go. Therefore, one of the other important objectives of the BBNJ agreement is to provide a strong legal framework for international synergy and the establishment and effective management of a representative and well-connected network of marine protected areas.
In June 2023, in New York, USA, 15 years of intense negotiations came to a successful conclusion, and the first legally binding international agreement on biodiversity conservation on the high seas was adopted by the United Nations. The formal agreement specifies four rules, namely, marine genetic resources and their benefit-sharing, area-based management measures (e.g., marine protected areas), environmental impact assessment, capacity-building and transfer of marine technology. In the preamble to the Treaty, it is written: "The Parties to this Agreement need to recognize the need to address the problems of the oceans and seas in a coherent and cooperative manner; A coherent and cooperative approach is also one of the main ways of global fisheries governance. ”
(3) The logical relationship between the BBNJ Agreement and the legal system for the international governance of fisheries on the high seas
As can be seen from the above, the object of adjustment of the high seas fishery system is the fishery resources in the high seas domain; The BBNJ International Agreement, on the other hand, discusses biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the scope is much broader. However, the two are not completely independent and unrelated subjects, and the sustainable development of high seas fisheries is also one of the important links in the development of biodiversity in waters beyond national jurisdiction.
Biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction includes fishery resources. Marine genetic resources are one of the main topics of the BBNJ conference, and the genetic information of marine organisms must be inseparable from the biological information of different species of fish, and in a broad sense, marine genetic information includes fishery resources. Fishery resources are an important source of food for human beings, providing high-quality protein for human survival and development. Fishing, eating and processing fishery products are the main ways to exert their value. The definition of "fishery resources" is generally broadly adopted by regional fisheries organizations, i.e., it includes fish, crustaceans, shellfish, algae, and even species such as marine mammals, marine reptiles and seabirds that are valuable for exploitation. According to the relevant definition of the Convention on Biological Diversity, "genetic resources" are genetic materials with actual or potential value, and "genetic materials" emphasize having "functional units of heredity". Therefore, when a certain high seas fishery resource has a special "genetic functional unit", it can be regarded as a genetic resource more obviously. Different types of fishery resources fall under the umbrella of biodiversity, so the BBNJ Agreement will inevitably address the conservation of fish stocks when discussing how to maintain biodiversity.
Prohibiting excessive harm is one of the ways to maintain biodiversity, and it is also the main way to protect fishery resources. In order to ensure species diversity, the 2011 BBNJ Task Force identified area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, and environmental impact assessment as the two basic measures for biodiversity conservation in seas beyond national jurisdiction. The logic behind these two measures is to reduce the impact on biodiversity by reducing human damage to living organisms and the environment. In the field of fisheries, in order to avoid the endangered extinction of a fish species caused by overfishing, these two basic conservation measures have also been continuously used, such as the need for countries to provide certain data in their fishing plans to support the scientific and rational fishing methods and quantities; States should develop and adopt selective fishing gear and fishing techniques to make them environmentally sound; Establish conservation and management measures for specific fish stocks in the area and agree on the allocation of catchable amounts of members in the area. These basic measures have been applied in the field of fisheries for many years and have played an important role in promoting the sustainable development of fisheries on the high seas. The interlinkages between the BBNJ Agreement and the high seas fisheries regime are also reflected in the interoperability of conservation tools and management tools. It can be seen that the conservation of biodiversity in waters beyond national jurisdiction and the sustainable development of fisheries on the high seas are intertwined and mutually influential.
2. The "Southern Bluefin Tuna Case" and the inadequacy of the legal system for international governance of high seas fisheries
In the process of discussing and formulating the BBNJ Agreement, it will inevitably involve the management of fishery resources, and in the face of the large number of existing conventions and normative documents on high seas fisheries, should the BBNJ Agreement be adjusted together? This issue was raised at the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Group in 2006, when a number of country representatives expressed the view that global fishery resources, including high seas fisheries, had developed a model for management by FAO and a number of regional fishery bodies. Coupled with the existence of a large number of legal norms and international documents, fishing practices such as IUU (Unreported and Unregulated Fishing) have been curbed, and actions such as zoning measures have begun to bear fruit, so the BBNJ agreement should avoid the field of high seas fisheries.
In addition, as can be seen from the BBNJ Agreement, it will also take a non-direct adjustment approach to the issue of high seas fisheries, without prejudice to existing international mechanisms, and respect the competence of existing institutions. If the provisions of Part II of the Agreement provide that the provisions of this Part shall not apply to fishing and fishing-related activities under relevant international law or to fish or other living marine resources known to have been caught in the course of fishing and to fishing-related activities originating from areas beyond national jurisdiction, unless the use of such fish or other living marine resources is regulated by this Ministry. In this BBNJ agreement, there is no direct adjustment to the high seas fishery, but the purpose of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction is bound to be related to the protection of marine fishery resources.
(1) "Southern Bluefin Tuna Case"
The southern bluemackerel tuna is a highly migratory fish that lives mainly in the Southern Hemisphere and is widely distributed in the Antarctic-influenced waters of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans. Because of its high market value, in the 60s of the 20th century, the annual catch of tuna was as high as 80,000, and its population was seriously threatened due to overfishing. According to statistics, in the early 60s of the 20th century, the number of adult southern bluefin tuna decreased by 70% compared to the 60s. Since the mid-80s of the 20th century, with the increase in human awareness of animal protection, the fishing countries of southern bluefin tuna have also begun to realize the need to fish responsibly. In 1996, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) also listed southern bluefin tuna as critically endangered. Australia, New Zealand and Japan, all major fishing countries, are also the main catchers of southern bluefin tuna. In May 1993, the three countries signed the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), which limits the total catch of this species. Following the entry into force of the Convention, the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna was established, which determines the total global catch each year, as well as the catch quotas of each of the three countries for that year. The Republic of Korea and Taiwan also acceded to the Convention on Protection in 2001 and 2002, respectively.
Beginning in 1994, Japan believed that southern bluefin tuna populations were beginning to rebound and therefore called for an increase in the total global catch. Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, argue that the available scientific data is insufficient to support a sufficient recovery in stocks of the species and to increase catches. In 1998, Japan unilaterally decided to start an experimental fishing program on the grounds of surveying the reserves of southern bluefin tuna. Australia and New Zealand objected, arguing that Japan's actions would result in southern bluefin tuna catches exceeding their quotas. Australia and New Zealand formally initiated negotiations in August 1998 on the ration of additional fishing. As negotiations failed, in July 1999, Australia and New Zealand submitted their respective disputes to the United Nations Tribunal for the Law of the Sea under UNCLOS. The Court is requested to declare that: (1) Japan has violated Articles 64, 116, 117, 118 and 119 of UNCLOS in relation to the conservation and management of the southern mackerel tuna. (2) Japan ceased to carry out experimental fishing programs without the consent of the plaintiff State and did not take any action that might exceed its catch quota; Consultations continue to restore or maintain southern bluefin tuna to a level capable of producing maximum sustainable production. Subsequently, the two claimant States also requested the Tribunal to direct interim measures in accordance with article 290 of UNCLOS. On 16 August 1999, the Tribunal ordered the joinder of the two cases of Australia and New Zealand v. Japan.
(2) The inadequacy of the legal system for the international governance of high seas fisheries in the "Southern Bluefin Tuna Case".
The arbitral tribunal in this case was the first arbitral tribunal established in accordance with Annex VII and Part XV (dispute settlement part) of UNCLOS.
The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a maritime charter that currently addresses ocean issues and is of universal application to States parties. Article 116 of UNCLOS provides for the right of States to fish on the high seas, article 17 sets out the obligation of States to take measures for the conservation of living resources on the high seas for their nationals, and article 18 provides for cooperation among States in the conservation and management of living resources: "States shall cooperate with one another in the conservation and management of living resources in areas of the high seas." Countries whose nationals exploit the same biological resources, or different biological resources within the same district or city, shall enter into negotiations with a view to taking the necessary measures for the conservation of the biological resources concerned. To this end, these States shall cooperate, where appropriate, with a view to establishing subregional or regional fisheries organizations". Article 119 provides for the conservation of living resources on the high seas. The Convention regulates the total annual catch of southern mackerel tuna and the catch quotas of the three countries. With regard to fishing rights and fishing quotas, they complement each other and influence each other, and do not conflict or contradict each other. A country can obtain fishing rights within the scope of international law, but if it does not comply with the fisheries convention and fulfill the corresponding conservation obligations, it cannot obtain fishing quotas, and even if it obtains quota rights, if fishing exceeds the limit of resources, the continuous realization of the right cannot be guaranteed.
From the above legal provisions, it can be seen that in the event of disputes between countries over the protection of living resources on the high seas and the utilization of fishery resources, the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the regional international treaties to which States are voluntarily parties shall mainly apply. Although UNCLOS stipulates the basic provisions of States parties such as the right to fish on the high seas, the obligation to conserve marine resources, and the obligation to cooperate, there is still no mature and fixed legal mechanism, so disputes around these key issues continue to arise in practice, and in individual cases, the parties can only seek redress through various channels.
Taking this case as an example, first of all, in the case of the endangerment of the southern blue mackerel tuna, a living marine resource, Japan can still overfish on the grounds of investigation after the Convention has limited the total amount of fishing and the Commission has set quotas for the catch of various countries. It would still be possible for the actors to carry out fishing activities through their own understanding, and the rules would be null and void.
Secondly, the provision on cooperation between States under article 18 of the Convention that mentions the establishment of subregional or regional fisheries organizations at the end is only written here, leaving a large number of gaps that need to be strengthened, just as in this case it is not that there are no subregional or regional fisheries organizations, but that such fisheries organizations do not play a practical role and are unable to regulate and regulate fisheries activities. However, subregional or regional fisheries organizations have a non-negligible role in restricting the fishing behaviour of fishing subjects, the management and protection of migratory fisheries, and the protection of marine resources and the environment.
The management system of fishery resources on the high seas is not perfect, and there are still thorny problems in the process of marine fishery governance: overfishing; Some regional fishery protection agreements are not legally binding and cannot effectively bind the behavior of the contracting parties, and the individual cases cannot be well resolved by relying on the relevant institutional provisions, and the relevant countries have to find other ways to remedy; The management capacity of regional fishery organizations is limited, the effectiveness of regional management is not obvious, and it is difficult to fully implement protection and restraint measures, so the governance system of high seas fisheries still needs to be improved.
and (iii) the feasibility of coordinating the development of a legal system for the international governance of fisheries on the high seas based on the BBNJ Agreement
According to the 2012 FAO statistical report, in recent years, the high seas catch has been declining, the proportion of overexploited stocks has increased, and the proportion of underexploited stocks has decreased. In particular, the deterioration of fishing status for highly migratory, transboundary and fished wholly or partly on the high seas; The proportion of marine fish stocks caught within sustainable limits has shown a downward trend, from 90 percent in 1974 to 66.9 percent in 2015. By comparison, 33.1 per cent of the world's marine fisheries are overfished, which is a worrying situation. Among them, the situation of highly migratory, transboundary and fishery resources fished wholly or partly on the high seas is particularly serious. Without effective conservation measures, the world's commercially available marine fish stocks could be depleted by 2050.
Overfishing is one of the primary causes of the gradual scarcity of fishery resources, and the drastic reduction or even extinction of a certain biological population will affect the entire biological system. In particular, some species that are more susceptible to fisheries, such as marine mammals, sharks, sea turtles and seabirds. Although there have been some achievements in the long-term practice of cracking down on IUU fishing activities, such as the certificate of origin system, the "legal fishing vessel list" system, and the "IUU fishing vessel list" system, the actual situation is still serious, as mentioned above in the case of "bluefin tuna overfishing", which violated the agreement and disguised overfishing. There is no mature and fixed legal mechanism for the protection of biological resources on the high seas, the international community is composed on the basis of sovereignty, sovereign states are the leaders of international relations and the main body of international treaties, and the existing global and regional fishery governance conventions rely more on the good faith performance of the parties, and the substantive basis of this performance is not the compulsory law, but more of the competition and choice between national interests, national image and international community forces. In the absence of a well-developed, universally recognized and long-lasting legal mechanism that is respected by the majority of sovereign States, there will still be States willing to find reasons to violate the protective conventions to which they have concluded in their own interests.
The governance of high seas fisheries has exposed a series of problems that cannot be solved by existing fisheries management systems, and is not conducive to the conservation of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. In the context of unified legislation on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, if we can face up to the relevance of fishery resources management and the BBNJ agreement, properly deal with the overlapping areas of the two in the process of BBNJ legislation, and promote the further improvement of the international regulation of high seas fisheries under the influence of the BBNJ agreement, this will not only help to make up for the shortcomings of the high seas fishery system, but also provide a multi-level implementation approach and guarantee for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity.
3. A concrete path for the coordinated development of a legal system for the international governance of fisheries on the high seas based on the BBNJ Agreement
(1) Limit overfishing
The BBNJ agreement redefines fishing standards and restricts fishing practices. At present, the deepening crisis of high seas fisheries is mainly caused by fishing efforts exceeding the carrying capacity of resources, so it is possible to add requirements for fishery fishing in the BBNJ agreement to fill the loopholes in the existing system in the management of overfishing. To set a scientific ceiling on fishing, the total catch must be set below the maximum sustainable production of the resource, so that the fish stock has an incentive to reproduce. At present, the main body of total catch species assessment and data collection is the International Fisheries Organization (FIO) and flag ship States. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries requires flag ship states to collect and assess data and information in a timely, reliable and comprehensive manner in accordance with relevant international standards and methodologies, and to ensure the accuracy of data statistics. However, it can be seen from the "Southern Bluefin Tuna Case" that there is no strict scientific basis and standard for flag states to determine the number of catches, and even through testing activities to achieve the goal of expanding the number of catches, which then leads to disputes. Therefore, in order to ensure that the flag state provides the assessment data in a true and effective manner and to avoid the occurrence of similar incidents, the BBNJ agreement can establish a legally binding working mechanism to regulate the conduct of the flag state. For example, establish a sound fishing record system to detail the quantity, size and location of fishing; Organize monitoring agencies and assign monitoring crews to monitor daily fishing vessels; Train professional scientists to conduct scientific research on fish species, living habits, spawning patterns, and swimming trajectories to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the deep-sea fishery ecosystem. A scientific handbook on fish should be developed so that flag states can fully understand and develop scientific fishing plans to avoid harm to fish species.
Mitigating overfishing should also start with stricter access standards for fishing vessels. Article 18 of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of 10 December 1982 <联合国海洋法公约>relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks provides that fishing States shall regulate vessels on the high seas by means of fishing licences and authorizations, in accordance with the relevant requirements set out in global and regional fisheries agreements; Fishing on the high seas is prohibited without an approved permit; Vessels are prohibited from fishing on the high seas beyond the conditions and limits set out in the permit. The IUU Action Plan regulates all types of illegal fishing on the high seas. In specific regulatory practice, the joint law enforcement mechanism on the high seas reached between member states has also cracked down on various illegal fishing activities on the high seas to a certain extent, and strengthened the supervision of fishery resources on the high seas. Despite the intensification of international regulation on the high seas, IUU fishing remains critical due to economic interests and the natural nature of the high seas. In this regard, the BBNJ agreement can further summarize and discuss the problems that arise in the access system, such as making it more difficult to access or reducing the quota for fishing vessels, taking tough measures against overfishing vessels to enforce fishing bans instead of adopting the previous "if a country's actual production exceeds the quota, the excess will be deducted from the quota for the following year"; At the same time, in practice, various means such as setting fishing ban periods, fishing ban areas, and nature reserves are used to increase permit requirements. Emphasizing the positive role of the "legal fishing vessel list system" and the "IUU fishing vessel list system", the access of fishing vessels is more strictly restricted.
(2) Improve the management tools for zoning
A regional management tool is a collective term that refers to a set of spatially decisive measures to prevent environmental damage, conserve resources and coordinate regional activities. It includes networks of marine protected areas and associated fisheries measures, and is an important tool for the conservation and management of marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. There are already a large number of regional fisheries management organizations and institutions in the fisheries governance system, such as the "Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission" and the "Southern Bluefin Tuna Conservation Commission" mentioned above, and it is undeniable that these organizations have played a role, but now it is more important to think about how to coordinate the existing mechanisms. If the BBNJ agreement involves the management of fishery biological resources, it will inevitably touch the existing fishery system, and whether to respect and retain the existing system or to reformulate a new system to change the original system is a question that has been discussed at the BBNJ meeting. Article 19 of the BBNJ Agreement promulgated in New York, United States of America in June 2023, stipulates that the agreement should respect the authority of relevant legal instruments and frameworks when establishing regional management instruments, rather than undermining them and relevant global, regional, sub-regional and sectoral institutions. The Conference of the Parties should organize regular consultations based on regional management tools to strengthen coordination and cooperation between relevant global and regional regions. It can be seen from this paragraph that the agreement adopts a non-institutional approach to area-based management, i.e., no change to the original fisheries system, but at the same time it also indicates that it will strengthen consultation and cooperation between regions, frameworks and even sectors, so that the improvement and harmonization of existing fisheries systems through area-based management tools is also a necessary and feasible path.
The BBNJ Agreement does not need to change the balance and foundation of the original fisheries governance, but should do the work of filling the gaps: encouraging and promoting the operation of some effective regional management organizations; Carry out zoning management in areas beyond the jurisdiction of the state that have not yet realized zoning management, and formulate supporting normative systems; In order to further alleviate the pressure of overfishing as mentioned above, the BBNJ agreement could develop a more professional and detailed fishing regime through exchanges and cooperation with fisheries management agencies in parallel with zoning management. In addition, the BBNJ agreement can develop regional management guidebooks, learn from the experience and rules of excellent management organizations, or provide professional guidance on regional management tools by expert groups, help inter-regional organizations improve and develop, and can also build a platform for inter-regional exchanges. In this way, the existing regional management results can not be undermined, but also the integrated development on the basis of them can fill the gaps, so that the regional management model can play a greater role.
(3) Improve the environmental impact assessment mechanism
An environmental impact assessment is a procedural tool used to ensure that the potential adverse effects of an action on the environment are fully understood before an act is conducted. As mentioned above, there are already relevant provisions on the conservation of biological resources in article 61 of the existing United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but this article only provides for principles in principle. In 2006, the United Nations General Assembly called on States and regional fisheries management organizations to conduct environmental impact assessments prior to engaging in fisheries activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Paragraph 83 (a) of General Assembly resolution 61/105 calls upon regional fisheries management organizations to "assess whether individual bottom fishing activities will have significant adverse effects on vulnerable marine ecosystems on the basis of the best available scientific information and, if so, seek to prevent or halt such impacts". General Assembly resolution 64/72 of 2009 requested flag States and regional fisheries management organizations to implement United Nations resolution 61/105 in accordance with the FAO Guidelines for Deep-Sea Fisheries. In addition, they should "ensure that vessels do not engage in bottom fishing until such assessments are made." "While this is a positive development, the fact that some countries are reluctant to accept environmental assessment as a prerequisite for fishing activities has in fact been ineffective. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources was the first to take the decision to require Parties to notify the Scientific Committee and submit a preliminary environmental impact assessment, and that Parties should not authorize vessels to fly their flags to participate in bottom fishing without the approval of the Committee. Since 2014, SEFO, NEAFC and NAFO have carried out EIAs on priority basis for exploratory bottom fishing in vulnerable marine ecosystems and regulated areas, but only for new and exploratory fisheries. However, the effectiveness of these measures is limited by the implementation of strategic, integrated environmental impact assessments for fishing and other activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Part IV of the BBNJ Agreement sets out detailed measures for environmental impact assessment. The EIA report shall include, at a minimum, the following information: a description of the planned activities, including their location, a description of the results of the scoping exercise, a baseline assessment of the marine environment of the environment that may be affected, a description of the potential impacts, including potential cumulative impacts and any impacts within national jurisdiction, a description of potential prevention, mitigation and management measures, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge, information on the public consultation process: a description of considerations of reasonable alternatives to the planned activities, a description of follow-up actions, Includes an environmental management plan, as well as a non-technical summary. In addition, the Scientific and Technical Body may make comments on the draft environmental impact assessment report to the Parties in due course, taking into account any comments of the Scientific and Technical Body. This provision not only helps to facilitate the implementation of a strategic and integrated environmental impact assessment prior to fishing activities, but also provides a more detailed and scientific content for the assessment. When discussing the rules and regulations of environmental impact assessment in the BBNJ agreement, the environmental impact assessment system in fishery governance should be implemented, and regional organizations should be encouraged to develop prior environmental impact assessment plans and develop a sound legal framework to ensure the implementation of credible environmental impact assessment and prevent irreversible damage to biodiversity on the high seas. An independent third-party body could also be established to conduct environmental reviews to discuss the marine policies and fishing plans of different countries for the implementation of the regime. Therefore, the BBNJ agreement should be coordinated and cooperated with the environmental impact assessment system in fishery governance, and establish unified and advanced assessment and consultation requirements, so that other regional and industry organizations can conduct assessments in accordance with the standards and consultation procedures of the agreement, and at the same time provide new ideas for fishery governance, carry out cooperation and exchanges when necessary, promote the improvement of the fishery system, and ensure that the interests of the international community are reflected.
4. Strengthen global cooperation
The ocean is a fluid and interconnected whole, and some fish stocks are migratory and move back and forth between different waters, and based on ecological connectivity, to achieve the overall species conservation goals, it is necessary to connect and interact with each other. Regional fisheries organizations (RFOs) play a significant role in this regard, and many of them, such as those mentioned above, actively pursue periods of intra-regional cooperation for the conservation of specific migratory fish species in order to maximize conservation objectives. International cooperation is a trend and trend, the solution of many international problems is inseparable from cooperation, and the settlement of many international disputes depends more on consultation and cooperation between countries. However, how to make better and more effective use of the means of international cooperation requires more challenges and reflections. In the field of BBNJ, countries should focus more on cooperation between regional fishery organizations, add more consultation, cooperation and interrelated agreement provisions to the BBNJ agreement, or build a platform for dispute resolution, explore a more mature and powerful new model of cooperation in the traditional international cooperation model, and strengthen global cooperation in the field of fisheries.
epilogue
From the initial exploration of the BBNJ issue at the beginning of the 21st century to the conclusion of the negotiation of the BBNJ agreement, the system of marine biodiversity rules has been continuously enriched and constructed, and is committed to the protection of marine biological resources and the maintenance of marine ecosystems. As one of the living marine resources, the fishery resource exploitation system has become a self-contained system and is constantly developing and improving, and when new issues emerge, it is also an unavoidable problem to define the relationship and seek coordination. The sustainable development of high seas fisheries and the topic of BBNJ have similarities in terms of theme. The development of the BBNJ Agreement and the discussion of focal issues have also provided new solutions to fisheries governance issues in different ways. Therefore, as long as the integration and coordination of systems is possible, the solution to the problem of fishery resource management can be solved not only by the existing system, but also by the new ideas found in the BBNJ agreement.