CONSULTATIVE
OPINION: PETITION EAS10/00
REPORTER:
H.M.C. DINAH SHELTON
SECRETARY:
H.M.C. DEMETRIO LOPERENA ROTA
CONSULTATIVE
OPINION
INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ARBITRATION
AND
CONCILIATION
***
CHAMBER
OF CONSULTS
REPORTER:
Dinah
Shelton
MEMBERS:
Rita
Raum by proxy Luis Caeiro
Vassili
Costopoulos
Andrew
Waite
Amedeo
Postiglione
REGULATION
OF FISHING METHODS AND GEAR
(EAS-O.C.
- 10/00)
Pursuant to the request for a Consultative Opinion submitted by Esteban Olaizola Elizasu, Chairman of the Fishermen Guild of Hondarribia, Spain, and Robert Alvarez, Chairman of the Association Itsas Geroa (Future of the Sea), France, concerning the alleged incompatibility of certain European Community fishing policy with international and Community environmental law concerning the conservation of marine living resources, the Chamber of Consults agrees as follows:
I.PROCEEDINGS
1. On 10 March 2000, Esteban Olaizola Elizasu, Chairman of the Fishermen Guild of Hondarribia, Spain, and Robert Alvarez, Chairman of the Association Itsas Geroa (Future of the Sea) requested a Consultative Opinion of the International Court of Environmental Arbitration and Conciliation (the Court). The petitioners asked specifically for an opinion on the need for a fishing reserve from the 46N North to the South, in the area of the Bay of Biscay, to restrict fishing to those vessels using traditional methods, barring driftnets, trawling and other non-selective means of fishing.
2.On 26 January 2001, Eckard Rehbinder, Secretary General of the Court, appointed an Admission Committee consisting of Luis Caeiro, Andrew Waite and Dinah Shelton to consider the admission of the petition.
3.The Admission Committee gave its opinion in favour of admission of the petition, following which Dinah Shelton was designated reporter for the Chamber of Consults.
4.On the basis of the submissions of the petitioners and, pursuant to the Statute of the Court, in application of international treaties, general rules and principles of international environmental law, and relevant Community law, the Chamber of Consults has come to its conclusions.
II.FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS
5.The legal opinion of the Chamber of Consults is based upon the following facts as they have been submitted by the petitioners:
a.Bait fishing traditionally has been done in the Bay of Biscay by Spanish, French and Portuguese fishing fleets, along with some boats from Asian countries such as Japan and Korea.The fishing gear was initially and generally the stern line. From the 1950s live bait was used and subsequently, the boulter method came into general use. Some fifteen years ago approximately 200 fishing vessels from Hondarribia, San Sebastian, Bermeo and San Jean de Luz used traditional and selective methods to fish for hake. Traditional fishing methods for most species are largely seasonal, restricted to those periods in which e.g. anchovy and tuna appear.
b.Driftnet and open trawling methods of fishing were introduced by the French fleet in this region in 1987 to target Atlantic tuna which were being taken in sharply declining numbers by traditional methods.The use of driftnet and open trawling fleet increased by 126% in the two years between 1990 and 1992, accounting for about 25% of the total tuna catch in 1992, counting only catches unloaded in port.Unlike traditional fishing, driftnet and trawling operations over a water column take place throughout the year.In recent years, French driftnet vessels have been joined by Irish and Spanish reflagged ships using driftnets and open sea trawling.
c.Since the introduction of driftnets and open trawling, fish catch has been decreasing among the traditional fishing fleets, with the losses beginning at different times according to the type of gear used. Live bait catches began to decline after 1990 while catches using the boulter method were greatly reduced between l986 and 1991. causing concern among the traditional fishing sector around the Bay of Biscay.
d. Several targeted species of fish, including hake, have disappeared from traditional fishing grounds since the arrival of pelagic trawlers. With the disappearance of hake, three traditional fisheries remain: anchovies, tuna and mackerel. These fisheries are unsustainable due to the impact of pelagic trawlers and the depletion of the anchovy stock is predicted.
e. Driftnet and open trawling methods also have had a significant negative impact on non-target marine species, such as dolphins and other cetaceans, sharks, and pomfrets because driftnets constitute a non-selective means of fishing. One hundred seventy-one tons of cetaceans were caught by driftnets in 1992 or approximately 35 kilos of cetacean for every ton of tuna. Mortality rates do not include fish that are wounded but escape from the nets to die elsewhere and fish killed or lost when the nets are mechanically raised.
f. The decline of the fisheries has led to reducing the number of traditional fishing vessels and a consequent loss of employment in the region, with economic and social consequences.
III.APPLICABLE LEGAL INSTRUMENTS
6.Global Instruments
a.Treaties
b.General Assembly Resolutions and International Declarations
7.Regional Instruments
a.Treaties
b.Regulations, Directives and Decisions
IV. ANALYSIS
International environmental agreements and national laws for the protection of biological diversity now widely prohibit non-selective means of killing or capturing living resources.All major regional agreements contain such restrictions. (See: the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 19 September 1979), which includes a special Appendix listing means prohibited for taking and capture; the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (Algiers, 15 September 1968), which in Art. VII prohibits certain non-selective means of hunting and fishing; the ASEAN Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (Kuala Lumpur, 9 July1985), Art. 4(2); and the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (Washington, 12 October1940)). The Council of Europe informed the United Nations Secretary General on 23 May 1995 that in view of the fact that the U.N. ban on driftnets dealt with the sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources, it would be particularly taken into account in the activities aimed at the implementation of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.
Globally, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992), which recognizes biological diversity as a common concern of humankind, imposes on states parties an obligation to use biological resources in a sustainable manner, defined as the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations (Art. 2).Article 8, governing in situ conservation calls on states parties to take a range of measures, including establishment of protected areas.
More specifically, international measures adopted since 1989 have steadily moved towards a global ban on driftnet fishing.While many of the texts adopted are in the form of non-binding resolutions, their content and the consensus surrounding them express the opinio juris of the international community that widespread use of non-selective fishing methods is contrary to the general principles of international environmental law.This consensus is also reflected in the growing state practice of banning the use of driftnets by flagged vessels and within maritime zones under state jurisdiction.
The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a series of resolutions on driftnet fishing that include calls for minimizing waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species, and impacts on associated or dependent species.The General Assembly specifically called for a global ban on driftnet fishing as of December 31, 1992 (Res. 46/215 of Dec. 20, 1991), and urged individual and collective measures to prevent driftnet fishing operations on the high seas. United Nations General Assembly resolution 46/215, and subsequent resolutions, inter alia, called upon members of the international community to ensure that the global moratorium on all large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing was implemented fully on the high seas of the world's oceans and seas, including enclosed seas and semi-enclosed seas, by 31 December 1992. Consequently, members of the international community, international organizations, regional integration organizations and appropriate non-governmental organizations were requested in General Assembly resolution 52/29 of 26 November 1997, to submit information to the Secretary-General concerning the implementation of General Assembly resolution 46/215.
Rejection of the permissibility of driftnets can be seen in the decline in their use and in the increasing measures taken against those vessels that continue to use driftnets.The 1998 Report of the Food and Agriculture Organization Concerning United Nations General Assembly Resolution 52/29 Entitled "Large-scale Pelagic Drift-net Fishing; Unauthorised Fishing in Zones of National Jurisdiction and on the High Seas; Fisheries By-catch and Discards; and Other Developments" stated that the global ban was increasingly effective.As far as FAO was aware, as of 1998 the Mediterranean Sea was the only region in the world where large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing gear (i.e., nets in excess of 2.5 km) were still being deployed. The vessels using this gear in the Mediterranean, and which target swordfish, were identified as primarily of Italian and French flags.Earlier, in 1995, the FAO informed the United Nations Secretary-General of a decline in the incidence of driftnet fishing which could be attributed principally to the successful implementation of the United Nations moratorium and enhanced flag state control over fishing vessels.At that point, the Mediterranean and the Bay of Biscay were identified as areas where large driftnets were being used in violation of the UN ban and EC Council regulation 345/92, which limited the length of driftnets to 2.5 kilometres per vessel.Greenpeace International also identified the European Community as having the most extensive large-scale driftnet fleet in the world that continued to act in contravention of General Assembly resolution 46/215 and subsequent decisions with respect to driftnet fishing.Most recently, in its resolution 55/8 of 2 May 2001, the United Nations General Assembly noted that there has been generally a marked decrease in the reporting of large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing activities in most regions of the world, but that it remains a threat to marine living resources in some areas.This resolution reaffirmed the importance attached to banning driftnet fishing and unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdictions, fisheries by-catch and discards, and other unsustainable practices.
The utility and permissibility of smaller driftnets has also been placed in question. Greenpeace International stated in 1994 that it is common knowledge that nets of 2.5 kilometres in length are not economically viable, neither in the Mediterranean swordfish fishery, nor in the North East Atlantic albacore fishery. Therefore, in Greenpeace view, illegal large-scale driftnet fishing is bound to continue in the North East Atlantic if high seas driftnet fishing is not altogether banned and effective enforcement action taken. Furthermore, because of the incompatibility between driftnets and other more selective gears in the same fishing areas, conflicts among fleets are expected (Response of Greenpeace International, 30 June 1995 in Report of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Environment and Sustainable Development: Sustainable Use and Conservation of the Marine Living Resources of the high Seas, A/50/553 of 12 October 1995). The European Commission similarly communicated to the Council on 8 April 1994 that the allowing of nets up to 2.5 kilometres long has to be seriously questioned. First of all, it is a cardinal factor in fraud. Secondly, it is an avenue through which the use of driftnets can be expanded (Report of the Secretary-General, para. 28.).
The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, as adopted by the Twenty-eighth Session of the FAO Conference on 31 October 1995, establishes a policy on gear selectivity. The EC has been a participant in the Code since 10 August 1996. According to the Code, participants should require that fishing gear, methods and practices, to the extent practicable, are sufficiently selective so as to minimize waste, discards, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, and impacts on associated or dependent species and that the intent of related regulations is not circumvented by technical devices. In this regard, fishers should cooperate in the development of selective fishing gear and methods. States should ensure that information on new developments and requirements is made available to all fishers. In order to improve selectivity, States should, when drawing up their laws and regulations, take into account the range of selective fishing gear, methods and strategies available to the industry.
There also is precedent prohibiting the use of driftnets in regional fisheries and the taking of strong enforcement measures to ensure compliance with the ban. Outside Europe, twenty-one countries adopted the International Convention for the Prohibition of Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South Pacific (Wellington, November 24, 1989). In addition to member states of the South Pacific Forum, other states may adhere to the Convention, including those states responsible for territories within the Convention area. Additional instruments are open for signature by distant-water fishing nations and all Pacific countries who wish to express solidarity with the objectives of the Wellington Convention. The Convention prohibits the use of driftnets more than 2.5 kilometres long in the area and the trans-shipment of driftnet catches. Parties may, in addition, take more stringent measures including prohibiting the landing of driftnet catches within their territory, the processing of driftnet catches in facilities under their jurisdiction, and the importation of fish or fish products caught by means of driftnets. State parties also may restrict port access and port servicing facilities for driftnet fishing vessels and prohibit the possession of driftnets on board any fishing vessel within areas under its fisheries jurisdiction. To enforce the general ban, the Convention calls on states parties to take measures consistent with international law to restrict driftnet fishing in the Convention area and to take measures leading to the withdrawal of good standing of registered vessels engaging in driftnet fishing activities. All parties collaborate in surveillance and enforcement.
The South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency took further action when it adopted a Treaty on Cooperation in Fisheries Surveillance and Law Enforcement in the South Pacific Region (Honiara, Solomon Islands, July 9, 1992). The Treaty seeks effective regional surveillance and enforcement through cooperation and harmonized minimum terms and conditions of fisheries access. No fishing vessel may be licensed that is not registered by the Agency and the parties agree to share information on the location and movement of fishing vessels, licensing and fisheries surveillance, and law enforcement activities.
Individual states have taken strong action to enforce the ban on driftnet fishing. The United States Driftnet Act Amendments of 1990 and the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, enacted in 1992, made it the stated policy of the United States to implement resolution 46/215 and secure a permanent ban on the use of destructive fishing practices, in particular large-scale driftnets. The Act provides for the denial of port privileges for any driftnet fishing vessel and sanctions for any nation whose nationals or vessels conduct large-scale driftnet fishing beyond the EEZ of any nation. The US noted in 1995 that it had reports that in two European fisheries driftnets were still being used.
European Community law also has strengthened over time, by legislation and by adherence to international treaties. Pursuant to Decision 86/237/EEC, O.J. 162 of 18 June 1986, the Community became a Contracting Party to the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (the ICCAT Convention) as of 14 November 1997. The ICCAT Convention provides a framework for regional cooperation on the conservation and management of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and adjoining seas by setting up an International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and adopting recommendations on conservation and management in the Convention area which become binding on the Contracting Parties. The ICCAT has recommended a number of technical measures for certain stocks of highly migratory species in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, specifying, inter alia, certain fishing gears. These recommendations are binding on the Community.
Some of the technical measures adopted by the ICCAT were incorporated into Council Regulation 1626/94 of 27 June 1994, O.J. L 171 of 6 July 1994, laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean and Council Regulation 850/98 of 30 March 1998, O.J. 127 of 27 April 1998, last amended by Regulation 812/2000, O.J. 100 of 20 April 2000, for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. Most recently, these measures were brought together in Council Regulation 973/2001 of 14 May 2001, O.J. L 137 of 19 May 2001, discussed below.
In Decision 98/392/EC, O.J. L 179 of 23 June 1998, the Community approved the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which contains principles and rules relating to the conservation and management of the living resources of the sea. In Decision 1999/377/EC, O.J. 132 of 27 May 1999, the Community signed the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program and by Decision 1999/386/EC, O.J. 147 of 12 June 1999, decided to apply it on a provisional basis pending its approval. The objectives in the Agreement include the progressive reduction of incidental dolphin mortalities in the tuna purse-seine fishery in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. While not concerning the Atlantic region, the adherence to the Agreement and its implementation reflect concern with reducing by-catches and with long term sustainability of fisheries.
In relation to the use of large-scale pelagic drift-net gear by EC Members, the Council of the EU in June 1998 decided to eliminate drift-nets over a period of three and a half years. See Council Regulation 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation 894/97. As of 1 January 2002, the use of drift-nets to catch tuna and swordfish will be banned, and their use in salmon fishing will be restricted to coastal waters. Driftnets will still be authorized in the Baltic Sea, however, where by-catches of marine mammals are considered to pose much less of a problem. For the 1998 fishing season, a maximum drift-net length of 2.5 km remained in effect, but the number of vessels using drift-nets had to be reduced by 40 percent from the 1995/97 reference period. Moreover, the Council and the Commission pledged to approve flanking measures, including some for the conversion of boats into more selective types of vessels, before the end of 1998, retraining and laying up. It was noted that this Council decision on this issue is the first time that 15 EU Members States have taken a decision to ban a particular fishing gear. According to the EC during the period 1995/97, the number of vessels using drift-nets was 640 in Italy, 77 in France, 11 in Ireland and between five and eight in the UK. In addition, 100 Spanish vessels use nets with an average length of 1.2 km in the Mediterranean Sea.
The authority for the Council ban on driftnets is found in Council Regulation 3760/92 of 20 December 1992, O.J. L 389 of 31 December 1992, last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession. In addition, Article 174 of the Consolidated Treaty establishes the principle that all Community measures must take account of the requirements of environmental protection in a precautionary spirit. Regulation 3760/92 establishes a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture and provides that the Council is to establish, in the light of available scientific opinion, conservation measures necessary to ensure rational and responsible exploitation, on a sustainable basis, of living marine resources, taking account of the impact of fishing on the marine ecosystem and for that purpose the Council may adopt technical measures regarding fishing gear and its method of use. In particular, the Council noted that for the purposes of rational and responsible exploitation of resources, the selectivity of fishing methods and gear should be improved with a view to optimum utilization of biological potential and limitation of discards. Further, the utilization of stocks must safeguard the particular needs of regions where local populations are especially dependent on fisheries and related activities. The Regulation establishes a common fisheries policy to cover exploitation activities involving living aquatic resources, and aquaculture, as well as the processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products where practiced on the territory of Member States or in Community fishing waters or by Community fishing vessels. The stated general objectives of the common fisheries policy are to protect and conserve available and accessible living marine aquatic resources, and to provide for rational and responsible exploitation on a sustainable basis, in appropriate economic and social conditions for the sector, taking account of its implications for the marine eco-system, and in particular taking account of the needs of both producers and consumers. To that end, and in order to ensure sustainable exploitation activities, the Regulation establishes a framework for the regulation of access, management and monitoring of exploitation activities, as well as the requisite means and procedures.
Other measures have been taken to support the sustainability of fisheries and avoid non-selective takings. In Council Decision 97/413 of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation (97/413/EC, O.J. L 175 of 3 July 1997), the Council expressed its concern that the most recent scientific advice available regarding the state of resources accessible to Community vessels demonstrated an urgent need to reduce the fishing mortality of certain stocks. In its view, the Community fishing fleet should be restructured with the aim of providing the sector with clear perspectives for sustainable fishing activities, taking into account the characteristics of each fishery and the possible economic and social consequences. It indicated that the employment generated in areas dependent on fishing should be taken into account in order to safeguard the particular needs of those regions but that it was necessary to adopt specific guidelines for reducing the fishing effort on the stocks in question, over an appropriate period of time, and depletion risk and overfished stocks. The Decision specifically refers to the precautionary approach, stating that it requires that fishing effort on other stocks should not increase unless such an increase is duly justified. The Council agreed that small scale coastal non-trawling fishing activities merit special treatment since such activities maintain a high number of direct jobs while having a modest impact on depletion risk and overfished stocks. Article 2 of the Decision requires that by 31 December 2001 at the latest, the fishing effort of each Member State shall be reduced, taking the levels defined in Article 7 (1) as a starting point, on the basis of the reduction rates in fishing effort which are required to be achieved in relation to the critical stocks set out in Annex I.
Council Regulation 973/2001 of 14 May 2001, 2001 O.J. L 137 of 19 May 2001, laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of certain stocks of highly migratory species, mandates additional action. The Regulation takes into account traditional fishing practices in certain areas by adopting specific provisions on capture and retention on board of certain tuna species. To ensure compliance, no vessels may commence or continue fishing in the applicable area without an observer on board. Article 4 specifically prohibits capture of tuna using driftnets in waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Spain or Portugal in certain areas, including those around the Canary Islands and Madeira or to fish for tuna in these areas using driftnets. Further restrictions are imposed on fishing gear in the Mediterranean.
In addition to the system of observers being implemented, other control systems applicable to the common fisheries policy have been instituted. See Council Regulation 2847/93 of 12 October 1993, last amended by Regulation 2846/98. Council Regulation (EC) No 2846/98 of 17 December 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, O.J L 358 of 31/12/1998, aims to strengthen and facilitate cooperation between all the authorities in the Community involved in the monitoring, inspection and surveillance of activities in the fisheries sector, setting up a general framework under which all the authorities concerned can request mutual assistance and the exchange of relevant information, and introducing specific monitoring programmes. Article 2 requires that each Member State, in order to ensure compliance with all the rules in force, within its territory and within maritime waters subject to its sovereignty or jurisdiction shall monitor, inspect and maintain surveillance of all activities in the fisheries sector, particularly fishing itself, transhipment, landing, marketing, transport and storage of fisheries products and the recording of landing and sales. The Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the best possible control within their territory and within maritime waters subject to their sovereignty or jurisdiction, taking into account their particular situation. Each Member State also shall ensure that the activities of its vessels outside the Community fishery zone are subject to proper monitoring and, where such Community obligations exist, to inspections and surveillance, in order to ensure compliance with Community rules applicable in those waters. This regulation, as well as the earlier one, provides for a list to be drawn up of the types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy. The Commission proposed such a list, O.J. C 105 of 15 April 1999, which includes using prohibited fishing gear or fishing methods or devices affecting the selectiveness of gear. Also mentioned is directed fishing for a species stock subject to a moratorium or unauthorized fishing in a given zone and/or during a specific period.
The prohibitions on use of non-selective fishing gear has been accompanied by measures intended to support the conversion of driftnet vessels. Council Decision 1999/27/EC of 17 December 1998, O.J. L 008 of 14 January 1999, adopts specific measures to encourage diversification out of driftnet fishing in the light of the unfavourable economic and social repercussions in the short term for a number of fishing fleets, specifically those of Spain, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom. These broader measures supplement Council Decision 979/282/EC , O.J. L 121 of 13 May 1997, which provided conversion assistance to Italian fishermen to end driftnet fishing. The 1999 measure grants compensation to fishermen and owners of vessels whose income depended on fishing with driftnets and who practiced it in 1995, 1996, or 1997.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2848/2000 of 15 December 2000 fixes for 2001 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required. O. J. L 334 of 30 Dec. 2000. The execution of fishing opportunities must accord with the Community legislation on the matter, and in particular with Council Regulation 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy; Council Regulation 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean; Council Regulation 627/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down general provisions concerning special fishing permits; Regulation 66/98, Council Regulation 88/98 of 18 December 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the waters of the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound; and Council Regulation 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. The Regulation thus fixes for 2001, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, fishing opportunities applicable to Community vessels third-country vessels in waters falling within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Member States and the specific conditions under which these fishing opportunities may be utilized. These opportunities are set out in Annexes to the Regulation. Further, technical measures are set out in Annex V and apply in addition to those set out in Regulation 850/98, Regulation 88/98 and Regulation 1626/94. Among the requirements in the Regulation itself, Article 17 governs mesh size of trawl nets, prohibiting small meshes for specific species. By-catches and taking of juveniles also must be minimized and limited to specific percentages of species on board. The percentages above are calculated as the percentage by weight, for each species, of the total catch excluding the catch of species subject to by-catch limits and are based on the catch taken by stock area. When these limits are reached, the vessels must cease fishing the area and move elsewhere.
V.CONCLUSIONS
1. Community fishing policy with its Dec. 31, 2001 ban on driftnet fishing and new control measures will provide the framework for conformity to and compliance with international law as of January 1, 2002. The Community and each member state must ensure effective implementation of the Community measures and application of general international law prohibiting non-selective methods of taking living resources.
2. While the establishment and enforcement of a fishing reserve in the Bay of Biscay, restricted to traditional fishing methods, is one means available to eliminate non-selective fishing in the region, it is not the only measure that could be taken to reduce unsustainable fishing practices. The choice among various methods to give effect to the obligation of in situ conservation is not dictated by international law and remains for determination by the Community and the member states in accordance with their respective powers, provided the measures comply with and are effective to satisfy international obligations.
At the request of the Secretariat of the International Court of Environmental Arbitration and Conciliation we have the honour to propose this Consultative Opinion, the HH. MM. CC. Dinah Shelton (Reporter), Rita Raum by proxy Luis Caeiro, Vassili Costopoulos, Andrew Waite, Amedeo Postiglione (Members), all of them Members of the Chamber of Consults therefore appointed.
ENQUIRY
of the Secretary General Assistant to certify that this document with its
seventeen pages is given in witness whereof the aforementioned and joined
Opinion of the Chamber of Consults.
San Sebastian, 5 November 2001.
Demetrio
Loperena Rota
Secretary
General Assistant