By Marina Tsirbas
- Chinese fishermen muscling in on Filipino fishing grounds
- South China Sea: Indonesia, Chinese ships in 'stand-off' over Natuna fishing row
- How China's fishermen are fighting a 'covert war' in the South China Sea
Dynamiting reefs and using cyanide aren't considered best practice in Australian fisheries, but they seem to be the norm in the South China Sea.
Add to this reef destruction as part of recent Chinese activities to create artificial islands and the use of super trawlers by a range of fishing fleets, and it's not hard to see why a collapse of this critical global fishery looms.
Beijing is using the country's fisherman as the advance guard to press its expansive territorial claims, experts say. Photo by Adam Dean for The Washington Post
Australia and the rest of the world should care about this issue and how it is managed. It will have implications for the immediate region and beyond.
While China delays on articulating precisely its maritime rights in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and claimant states argue over fishing rights, overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones, and disputed reefs and atolls, the fish are disappearing.
An estimated 12 per cent of global fish catch comes from the South China Sea. Large parts of populations in coastal states (Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam) rely on fish protein in their diet, and fishing makes a significant contribution to the economies of China, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia.
Some fish species are making their way onto the IUCN "red list" of threatened species in the near extinct category. On current trajectories a study by experts from the University of British Columbia, predicts a 50 per cent decline in some key fish-stocks (as measured by catch) by 2045.
Stocks are already a fraction of what they once were (down to as little as 5 per cent of 1950s levels in some cases) and catch per unit effort is a third of what it was 30-40 years ago. Trend lines indicate that we are headed to a collapse of a wide range of fish stocks. What should be a renewable resource has been made finite. Climate change has not helped the matter.
Depleting fishing grounds in the South China Sea will force those who usually fish in those seas further south including to Australian waters with implications for the environment and border security. As fish become scarcer the risk of increased "fishing nationalism" leading to conflict rises.
The sinking of the Chinese flagged vessel fishing illegally in Argentina's EEZ a few weeks ago should serve as a stark reminder of how big the stakes around fishing can be. Nobody wants tensions over fish in the South China Sea to escalate.
But the individual sovereignty based approach is not working to preserve the marine environment and fish sustainability. It is also out of step with the sort of measures that have been taken elsewhere in the world to manage fragile marine ecosystems and fish stocks which straddle jurisdictions. And it lacks the sense of urgency that the situation demands. The Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that a 50-60 per cent reduction in fishing catch would allow the fish to recover.
We should look at setting up a fisheries management organisation for the region and management frameworks with legally enforceable rules. An example is the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention which draws in pacific island nations (and their EEZs), fishing nations and others involved in the fishing supply chain including port states and target markets. It is explicitly without prejudice to issues of sovereignty stating that nothing within the Convention "shall constitute recognition of the claims or positions of any of the members of the Commission concerning the legal status and extent of waters and zones claimed by any such members".
Such an approach would seem particularly apposite to the South China Sea. Key distant water fishing entities like China, Japan, Chinese Taipei and the EU all with massive fishing fleets are members. Another example is the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) which applies to the Southern Oceans. Following this approach would involve adopting ecosystem management, catch documentation and vessel monitoring schemes, surveillance, enforcement, and market control measures.
Depleting fishing grounds in the South China Sea will force those who usually fish in those seas further south including to Australian waters with implications for the environment and border security.
In the South China Sea the regime would need to pull in major fishing, claimant, trans-shipment and target market states. As a first and urgent step we should consider whitelisting or a moratorium by all nations and consumers on imports caught in that part of the world unless they are suitably certified. Certification should be multiparty certification or through a regional organisation. Nations like Australia with marine and fisheries management experience could offer capacity building assistance. Civil society should become alert to the implications for the environment and the food security issues of failing to act.
While whitelisting or an import moratorium may seem extreme, to negotiate any cooperative management or legally binding regime would take years given the lack of trust and competing claims in the region. Along with trust we would need to build an appreciation of the gravity of the situation sufficient to enable claimants to accept the idea that, without prejudice to sovereignty, they need to cooperate to preserve the marine environment and fisheries rather than engage in fishing nationalism.
Given the strong market forces which are driving fishing in the South China Sea the cooperation of regional states and those beyond is needed – key target markets such as Japan, China the US and EU would need to take action. A multiparty/regional organisation certification regime would offer the best prospect of success and avoid some of the loopholes that make Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing a problem globally. (The EU already has an EU catch documentation and import prohibition scheme which might serve as an example.)
The Philippines has argued in its international court case against China that the manner in which China has conducted its island building and enhancement activities over the last 18 months or so has breached its international environmental obligations under UNCLOS. The process seems to have involved using enormous vessels to reach down below the water line, slice up the submerged coral reefs and deposit the rubble on top of features to raise them above the water line and expand them.
It's hard to see how such a practice would not breach environmental obligations.
If the arbitral tribunal does articulate the environmental issues in its judgement that will be an important step in raising international awareness of the gravity of the issue in the South China Sea and pushing forward regional cooperation. That will benefit the claimant and regional states which stand to lose from a collapse of the fishery and the broader international community which will also lose out if this is not addressed.
It may be hoped that the habits of cooperation formed in working to address this issue will also assist in the management of other disputes in the South China Sea.
Marina Tsirbas is Senior Executive Adviser for Policy Engagement at the National Security College at ANU.