A Comparative Study Of Antarctic And Arctic Fisheries Management Regime And Chinese Polar Fisheries Policy

Antarctic and Arctic play an important role in human being welfare,global environment changes and sustainable economic development. Thereis no deny for the environmental value, resources value, scientific valueand geopolitical value of Antarctic and Arctic, which are more enhancedwith the development of society. Moreover, with global warming andadvancement in science and technology, Antarctic and Arctic are no longerinaccessible. As a result, most competent nations are devoted to polarexpedition with a view to taking a leading role in polar research;meanwhile, they are also actively involved in the resources exploration inpolar areas, and resources exploitation seems on the agenda of internationalcommunities; they are competing with each other to safeguard their polarrights and interests, thus to have a “substantial existence” in polar areas.Under such conditions, there is no surprise that polar areas are becomingthe research highlights.Besides the enhanced awareness of polar rights and interests, the21st century witnesses the importance of ocean to social and economicdevelopment and nation’s image as a power, thus there is no doubt whypolar waters attracts so much international interests. As a non-polar nation,China attaches importance to the rights and interests of polar waters underthe framework of internal laws. Meanwhile, as a traditional fishery powerwith “supporting distant fishery” as a guide declared in the12thfive-year-plan of Chinese fishery development (2011-2015), fishing servesas an access to “substantial existence” in polar waters. In Antarctic waters,China has been involved in the krill fishery, while in adjacent sea of Arcticwaters China has also been long involved in the distant fishery, and, withthe global warming and formation of new fishing grounds in Arctic waters,China has more chances for Arctic fishery activities. It is urgent that Chinashould establish its own polar fishery policies. However, there is fewresearch currently being done in polar fishery management polices andstrategies. Reasons are as follows: it has not been long for China to beinvolved in polar fishery; there are no large-scale fishery activities in Arcticwaters, and Arctic nations take care of the fishery activities in waters withintheir sovereignty, thus Arctic fishery hasn’t aroused the interests andattention from the international community; as a law framework to regulatefishery activities in Antarctic waters, Convention for the Conservation ofAntarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has a reputation for its management competence, and seldom encounters oppositions and defiance.However, a good knowledge of polar fishery management regime willenhance our competence in carrying out polar fishing activities andestablishing Chinese polar fishery policies, and getting access to the latestdevelopment in polar fisheries policies and international community’sresponse to polar fisheries development. Only with the involvement inpolar fisheries activities and scientific research, can we have a goodknowledge of the function of polar fisheries management regime, canChina have the opportunity and competence to get involved in theconstruction of polar fisheries management regime, thus to maintain, to agreat degree, our rights and interests in polar fisheries. In this sense, theresearch into Antarctic and Arctic fishery management regime is of greaturgency and necessity.An explorative comparative study is adopted in this research tofacilitate a better understanding of highlights and drawbacks of Antarcticand Arctic fisheries management regimes. Based on their highlights anddrawbacks, this research will explore the enlightenment that Antarctic andArctic can have on each other in fisheries management. With a goodknowledge of the present situation and future trend of Antarctic and Arcticfisheries management regime, this research will further explore how toestablish a sound Chinese polar fisheries policy in the perspective of a Chinese polar strategy.This research begins with an introduction of background informationof Antarctic and Arctic fisheries. To have a full picture of Antarctic andArctic fisheries management, in the light of the various definitions ofAntarctic and Arctic waters given by different international organizations,this research gives an explorative definition of Antarctic waters based oneco-based fisheries management philosophy, and meanwhile, anexplorative definition of Arctic waters in consideration of the currentfisheries management situation at Arctic waters and Arctic adjacent sea.The research also gives an introduction of Antarctic and Arctic fisheriesresources situation with a view to facilitating a good understanding ofcurrent situation of Antarctic and Arctic fisheries management as well asthe trend for fisheries development in both waters. An introduction ofChinese Antarctic and Arctic fisheries activities will facilitate ourunderstanding of China’s historic and current involvement in them, whichwill serve as a basis for our further discussion of Chinese polar fisheriespolices. To enhance a good understanding of highlights and drawbacks ofpolar fisheries management regime, this research also analyzes the politicalsituations in both areas, which are believed to have a huge influence on theconstruction of polar fisheries management regimes, and meanwhile, whichwill be a prerequisite for the prediction of the trend for Antarctic and Arctic fisheries management regime.One of the research priorities goes to the analysis of the currentsituation of Antarctic and Arctic fisheries management regime. As for theAntarctic, with an introduction of ATS as well as CCAMLR, this researchlooks into the highlights and drawbacks of Antarctic fisheries managementregime. Antarctic Treaty (AT) serves as the law framework for Antarcticmanagement. The highlight of AT is “to freeze Antarctic land sovereigntyclaims”, which contributes to a harmonious political environment inAntarctic. The core of AT is for peaceful purpose, to encourage scientificresearch and international cooperation, and to protect Antarcticenvironment. The above-mentioned, together with its successfulmanagement practice in Antarctic, wins ATS a universal reputation andrecognition. As the only multi-lateral convention to exercise acomprehensive management over Antarctic marine living resources in ATS,CCAMLR also wins a universal reputation and recognition. Compared withthe performance of UNCLOS in Antarctic, CCAMLR is moreAntarctic-tailored, taking up the role as a fisheries managementconstitution in Antarctic. CCAMLR has got various highlights in itspractice in fisheries management: the open access for convention andcommission parties, which lays a good foundation for its “mass basis”; theorganized institutional structure with commission as a decision-making body and science committee as a professional advice provider, whichguarantees its scientific fisheries management measures; the dynamicnature of CCAMLR measures which makes CCAMLR an evolvingconstitution; with the core of international peace derived from AT,CCAMLR has unique talents in diplomatic wisdom; extensive cooperationwith UN, NGOs, coastal states, flag state, port state, non-CCAMLR parties,trading states, etc, who are the potential partners to combat IUU; eco-basedfisheries management and precautionary approach advocated in CCAMLRwhich make CCAMLR a pioneer for those scientific fisheries managementphilosophies. However, despites its good performance in fisheriesmanagement, CCAMLR also encounters some drawbacks: with thefreezing of land sovereignty claims, Antarctic waters lack “coastal states”who should have taken up more responsibilities in fisheries management;CCAMLR lacks the binding force for non-CCAMLR parties. As a whole,the construction of the framework for Antarctic fisheries managementregime is almost finished, having highlights and suffering drawbacks aswell.As for the fisheries management regime, Antarctic and Arctic areessentially distinguished from each other, while share some comparabilityas well. Geographical features are strikingly different, with “oceansurrounding land” at Antarctic,“land surrounding ocean” at Arctic. With provisions of UNCLOS, except the four high sea areas in Arctic waters,Arctic8(Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Russia, Canada, United States ofAmerica, Finland, Sweden) enjoy the sovereignty over other waters.Different from Antarctic waters governed by CCAMLR, Arctic waters lacka comprehensive and tailored fisheries law, and thus Arctic fishingactivities are mainly regulated by such influential international laws asUNCLOS. Besides those universally applicable international laws, Arcticfishing activities are also regulated by bilateral and multi-lateralagreements among Arctic8; however, these agreements are either tailoredfor specific fish stocks or for specific areas, giving rise to some “blindspots” and “overlaps” in fisheries management; Arctic Council andRegional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) are also sufferingthe same drawbacks of “blind spots” and “overlaps”; and Arctic8havetheir own unique fisheries management regulations, which gives rise to themess in fisheries management bodies. With climate change, sea ice atArctic waters are melting at a speeding-up pace, which contributes to agood prospect of fisheries exploitation at Arctic waters. Therefore, it is ofurgency that some comprehensive fisheries agreement should be agreed onbefore the large-scale fishery arises, and meanwhile, possibly, overfishingarises, which will definitely do harm to the sustainable development offishery resources and protection of Arctic ecosystem. However, it is no deny that RFMOs and Arctic8who so far have taken up most Arcticfisheries activities have accumulated valuable and enlightening fisheriesmanagement experience. For example, Norway has the organized andsystematic national fisheries laws and regulations; America is an activeadvocate for eco-based fisheries management; Canada is a goodpractitioner in precautionary approach for new emerging fisheries.With the same specific geographical locations, Antarctic and Arcticshare some similarities in nature, economy, and social situations. In the eraof thirst for natural resources, the ice-covered polar areas are no longer“ice-covered” with resources exploration and exploitation around thecorner. However, marine eco-systems in polar areas are so fragile that it iseasily under the attack of interference from human activities. Fisheriesmanagement is confronted with some similar challenges in both Antarcticand Arctic, such as climate change and environment degradation fromhuman interference. With the comparability between Antarctic and Arcticfisheries management, this research adopts an explorative and innovativecomparative study to explore the enlightenment that Antarctic and Arcticcan have on each other. With totally different political situations in bothareas, the copy of AT in Arctic areas is of no feasibility, however, it is boldand explorative enough to look into the enlightenment between Antarcticand Arctic fisheries management. This research gives priority to the enlightenment that Antarctic willhave on Arctic since CCAMLR has been universally recognized and ineffect for over30years. In the light of Antarctic fisheries managementhighlights, Arctic needs improvement in the following areas: acomprehensive fisheries management agreement, instead of a fragmentaryone, is needed to enhance the fisheries sustainable development;considering Arctic Council’s limited interest and competence in fisheriesmanagement, as well as limited coverage for present RFMOs at Arcticwaters and Arctic adjacent sea, a regional fisheries managementorganization should be established to act as the executive body; it isimportant to coordinate between Arctic and non-Arctic countries; it ispotentially valuable to apply such advanced fisheries managementphilosophies as eco-based management and precautionary approach inArctic; it is of urgency to coordinate and cooperate with other internationalorganizations and agreements to maintain the fisheries sustainabledevelopment.However, Arctic5(Norway, Denmark, Russia, Canada, United Statesof America) and some RFMOs have accumulated much experience infisheries management which is believed to throw some light on Antarctic.With a look into important Arctic fisheries countries’ fisheries managementexperience as coastal states will give some enlightenment to Antarctic waters where there are no coastal states owing to its “freezing of landsovereignty claims”. Although the present RFMOs are not competentenough to exercise Arctic fisheries management, they are playing animportant role in balancing the interest conflicts among differentstakeholders. Their coordinating role will give some enlightenment toCommission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR) who is confronted with the difficulty of coordinating amongdifferent stakeholders.China has been involved in krill fishery at Antarctic waters since2009.China has also accumulated much experience in the distant fishing at NorthPacific. Therefore, it is of urgency and necessity to establish Chinese polarfisheries policies. However, Chinese fisheries policies should beestablished under the framework of Chinese polar strategies, while so farChina has not released any polar strategies. With an investigation into othernations’ polar strategies as well as the present fragmentary Chinese polarpolicies and polar scientific achievements, this research will put forwardsome valuable advice on important issues that should be taken intoconsideration in establishing Chinese polar strategies. The advice is asfollows: to distinguish between strategic priorities of Antarctic and Arctic;to clarify Chinese polar rights and interests under international laws; toenhance the construction of Chinese polar strategies; to keep the core of “harmonious polar areas”; to orient our strategic position as a non-polarnation, etc. Chinese polar fisheries policies in the prospective of Chinesepolar strategies will be practical and of Chinese characteristics.