IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i16p6665-d400402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Barriers in Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Allocation Negotiations on Fishing Opportunities

Author

Listed:
  • Hussain Sinan

    (Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada)

  • Megan Bailey

    (Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada)

Abstract

Tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) have been given an arduous mandate under the legal framework of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Member states with different interests and objectives are required to cooperate and collaborate on the conservation and management of tuna and tuna-like species, which includes the allocation of fishing opportunities. It is well understood that the main RFMO allocation disagreements are the inability to agree on a total allowable catch, the lack of willingness to accept new members, disagreement on who should bear the conservation burden, and non-compliance with national allocations owning to perceived inequities. Addressing these elements is crucial for any organization if it is to sustain its credibility stability and legitimacy. This paper identifies additional barriers facing an equitable allocation process at the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). These challenges are multi-faceted and include institutional, political, and scientific barriers in the ongoing allocation negotiations, and further inhibit effective negotiation and resolution adoption as a whole. After almost 10 years of negotiations, the process has progressed little, and without agreement on these barriers it will be a challenge to adopt a stable systematic allocation process.

Suggested Citation

  • Hussain Sinan & Megan Bailey, 2020. "Understanding Barriers in Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Allocation Negotiations on Fishing Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6665-:d:400402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6665/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6665/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bailey, Megan & Ishimura, Gakushi & Paisley, Richard & Rashid Sumaila, U., 2013. "Moving beyond catch in allocation approaches for internationally shared fish stocks," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 124-136.
    2. Elizabeth Havice & Liam Campling, 2010. "Shifting Tides in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishery: The Political Economy of Regulation and Industry Responses," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 10(1), pages 89-114, February.
    3. U. Sumaila & Ahmed Khan & Andrew Dyck & Reg Watson & Gordon Munro & Peter Tydemers & Daniel Pauly, 2010. "A bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 201-225, October.
    4. Clark, Nichola A. & Ardron, Jeff A. & Pendleton, Linwood H., 2015. "Evaluating the basic elements of transparency of regional fisheries management organizations," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 158-166.
    5. Gary D. Libecap, 2007. "Open-Access Losses and Delay in the Assignment of Property Rights," NBER Working Papers 13642, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Yeeting, Agnes D. & Bush, Simon R. & Ram-Bidesi, Vina & Bailey, Megan, 2016. "Implications of new economic policy instruments for tuna management in the Western and Central Pacific," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 45-52.
    7. Noye, Jeremy & Mfodwo, Kwame, 2012. "First steps towards a quota allocation system in the Indian Ocean," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 882-894.
    8. Cullis-Suzuki, Sarika & Pauly, Daniel, 2010. "Failing the high seas: A global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1036-1042, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Staffan Waldo & Anton Paulrud, 2017. "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Fisheries: The Case of Multiple Regulatory Instruments in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(2), pages 275-295, October.
    2. Crow White & Christopher Costello, 2014. "Close the High Seas to Fishing?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-5, March.
    3. Violaine Tarizzo & Eric Tromeur & Olivier Thébaud & Richard Little & Sarah Jennings & Luc Doyen, 2018. "Risk averse policies foster bio-economic sustainability in mixed fisheries," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2018-07, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    4. Galaz, Victor & Crona, Beatrice & Österblom, Henrik & Olsson, Per & Folke, Carl, 2012. "Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries — Emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 21-32.
    5. Matz-Lück, Nele & Fuchs, Johannes, 2014. "The impact of OSPAR on protected area management beyond national jurisdiction: Effective regional cooperation or a network of paper parks?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-166.
    6. Bernard M Hoekman & Petros C Mavroidis & Sunayana Sasmal, 2023. "Managing Externalities in the WTO: The Agreement On Fisheries Subsidies," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 266-284.
    7. Changping Zhao & Maliyamu Sadula & Xiangmeng Huang & Yali Yang & Yu Gong & Shuai Yang, 2022. "The Game Model of Blue Carbon Collaboration along MSR—From the Regret Theory Perspective," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Naoto Jinji, 2011. "Fisheries Subsidies and Management in Open Economies," Discussion papers e-11-004, Graduate School of Economics Project Center, Kyoto University.
    9. Sumaila, Ussif Rashid & Huang, Ling, 2012. "Managing Bluefin Tuna in the Mediterranean Sea," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 502-511.
    10. Sumaila, U. Rashid & Dyck, Andrew & Baske, Adam, 2014. "Subsidies to tuna fisheries in the Western Central Pacific Ocean," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 288-294.
    11. Martin Bohle & Cornelia E. Nauen & Eduardo Marone, 2019. "Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Bianca Haas & Marcus Haward & Jeffrey McGee & Aysha Fleming, 2021. "Explicit targets and cooperation: regional fisheries management organizations and the sustainable development goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 133-145, March.
    13. Tromeur, Eric & Doyen, Luc & Tarizzo, Violaine & Little, L. Richard & Jennings, Sarah & Thébaud, Olivier, 2021. "Risk averse policies foster bio-economic sustainability in mixed fisheries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    14. Liam Campling & Elizabeth Havice, 2013. "Mainstreaming Environment and Development at the World Trade Organization? Fisheries Subsidies, the Politics of Rule-Making, and the Elusive ‘Triple Win’," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(4), pages 835-852, April.
    15. Jacques, Peter J., 2015. "Are world fisheries a global panarchy?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 165-170.
    16. Basak Bayramoglu & Brian Copeland & Jean-François Jacques, 2018. "Trade and fisheries subsidies [Le commerce international et les subventions à la pêche]," Post-Print hal-02624649, HAL.
    17. Stephanie McWhinnie & Kofi Otumawu-Apreku, 2013. "Profit Efficiency of the South Australian Rock Lobster Fishery: Nerlovian and Directional Distance Function Approach," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2013-13, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    18. Jules Selles, 2018. "Fisheries management: what uncertainties matter?," Working Papers hal-01824238, HAL.
    19. Nadhéra Babali & Mohamed Kacher & Dyhia Belhabib & Ferial Louanchi & Daniel Pauly, 2018. "Recreational fisheries economics between illusion and reality: The case of Algeria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-11, August.
    20. Russo, Tommaso & Pulcinella, Jacopo & Parisi, Antonio & Martinelli, Michela & Belardinelli, Andrea & Santojanni, Alberto & Cataudella, Stefano & Colella, Sabrina & Anderlini, Luca, 2015. "Modelling the strategy of mid-water trawlers targeting small pelagic fish in the Adriatic Sea and its drivers," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 300(C), pages 102-113.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6665-:d:400402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.