Page 232 - 《水产学报》2025年第8期

何妤如 水产学报, 2025, 49(8): 089319

Tab. 1 RFMOs and RFMA operating under governance scale established by UNFSA
date of convention area
type acronym full institutional name convention
adoption maritime zones geolocation
tuna IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 1949 EEZs + high seas Eastern Pacific Ocean
RFMOs
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Atlantic Ocean and adjacent
ICCAT 1966 EEZs + high seas
Tunas areas
Indian Ocean and adjacent
IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 1993 EEZs + high seas
areas
entire geo-range of Southern
CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna 1993 EEZs + high seas
Bluefin Tuna
Central and Western Pacific
WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 2000 EEZs + high seas
Ocean
non-tuna Mediterranean and Black
GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 1949 all marine waters
RFMOs Seas
NEAFC Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission 1959 high seas Northeast Atlantic Ocean
high seas parts of
NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization 1979 Northwest Atlantic Ocean
convention area
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Antarctica EEZs not
CCAMLR 1982 entire Southern Ocean
Living Resources defined
NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization 1983 EEZs + high seas North Atlantic
Convention on the Conservation and Management of
CCBSP 1994 high seas Central Bering Sea
Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea
SEAFO South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization 2001 high seas Southeast Atlantic Ocean
SIOFA Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement 2006 high seas Southern Indian Ocean
SPRFMO South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization 2009 high seas South Pacific Ocean
North Pacific Ocean
NPFC North Pacific Fisheries Commission 2015 high seas
(excluding Bering Sea)
Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in
RFMA CAOFA 2018 high seas Central Arctic Ocean
the Central Arctic Ocean
For instance, the WCPFC adjusted the originally vs. SEAFO/SIOFA, etc. Although member States
proposed northern boundary at 27.5°N to a broader, have certain discretion in choosing which organiza-
less specific delineation of Pacific Ocean to accom- tion’s measures to comply with —particularly
modate the Hawaiian EEZ and regional power regarding regional quota allocations —they may
dynamics. Pressured by Japan and other relevant still be subject to the regulatory frameworks of
States, the WCPFC also established a Northern another RFMO(s), such as in the case of vessel
Committee to oversee the management of species registration and reporting requirements.
found north of 20°N. Similarly, in order to preserve Besides, the inclusion of EEZs within RFMO
the territorial integrity of French Polynesia’s mari- jurisdictions remains a contentious issue among par-
time space, its southeastern boundary was extended ticipating States. RFMOs managing straddling and
in a manner that overlaps with part of the area man- highly migratory species like tunas often include
aged by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commis- coastal State’s EEZs within their regulatory frame-
sion (IATTC). These negotiated compromises fre- works. For instance, the IATTC includes the EEZ of
quently result in overlapping management areas the U.S., which hosts a substantial number of
where conflicting regulations and scale mismatches longline and purse seine vessels, and in the
emerge. The jurisdiction overlaps are also observed WCPFC, small island developing States often “wel-
in other RFMOs, including ICCAT vs. NEAFC/ come” foreign fishing effort into their EEZs to sup-
NAFO, IOTC vs. SIOFA, SPRFMO vs. WCPFC/ port their domestic economies. When jurisdictional
IATTC/CCAMLR, CCSBT vs. WCPFC/IOTC/ conflicts arise between RFMO’s CMMs and the
IATTC/ICCAT/etc, NASCO vs. NEAFC, CCAMLR domestic laws of coastal States, the implementation

https://www.china-fishery.cn 中国水产学会主办 sponsored by China Society of Fisheries
6