- Email: [email protected]
The UN convention on the law of the sea and its implications for third world countries: The case of tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
Ocean & Shoreline Management 15 (1991) 309-324
The U N Convention on the Law of the Sea and its Implications for Third World Countries: The Case of Tuna Fishery in South Pacific Countries Ludwig Scharmann Geographisches Institut, Universit~it Hannover, Schneiderberg 50, D-3000 Hannover 1, FRG (Presented at the Comission on Marine Geography meeting, Wilhelmshaven. May 1989) A BS TRA CT The significance of the EEZ for the 22 developing island countries and territories of the South Pacific is best brought out when one realizes that the combined area of these zones covers 30.57 million km 2, contributing at least 30 percent of the world's tuna harvest each year. However, presently 90 percent of the region's total catches is taken by distantwater fishing fleets from Japan, the US, South Korea and Taiwan. In order to increase the benefits derived from the exploitation of their tuna resources, each Pacific island country has to select its own development strategy to effectively utilize the resource. In this paper, some principal development options are illustrated by case studies from the South Pacific.
1 T H E LAW OF T H E SEA A N D FISHING ISSUES Although the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is not widely ratified and therefore not yet legally in force, the Convention has an impact on customary norms in international law that governs the behaviour of nations in the oceans. One of the major consequences for state practice is the worldwide acceptance of the legitimacy of coastal states extending their jurisdiction over marine resources to 200 nautical miles from their coasts. This process towards the nationalization of the oceans is responsible for a related positive movement for economic independence amongst some countries of the Third World. These developments have given rise not only to an 309 Ocean & Shoreline Management 0951-8312/91/$03.50 (~ 1991 ElsevierSciencePublishers Ltd, England. Printed in Northern Ireland
310
Ludwig Scharmann
increased awareness by certain states of the significance of their marine resources, but also to an expectation that considerable benefit may accrue from their development and exploitation. [. p 30 In many cases, due to the absence of extensive non-living resources (both offshore and land-based) the d e v e l o p m e n t of a significant local fishing industry is often seen as an easy and rapid way to achieve a greater degree of economic autonomy and prosperity. Because of this, the following discussion is restricted to issues relating to fisheries only. Making this limitation, even though there is the danger of drawing generalizations, as between developing countries, wide differences in almost every relevant social, political and economic pattern appear. Figures from recent world catch statistics show, there are clear indications of change favouring the Third World, whereas the share for the developed countries in toto is decreasing (Fig. 1). Of course, this does not mean that all of the Third World countries have increased their fish production, and certainly not all of the industrialized countries are standing in a position to lose. 2"p 336 As far as tuna catches are concerned, one can note among the developing countries some forerunners that include Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela and Ecuador. On the other hand, traditional major fishing nations like Japan, the USA, Spain and France have been able to defend their leading positions (Fig. 2).
[million
t]
5~
- ~- " -
~ ~
I .~
[ ] De'~.~l op,cd Count~,. [c:s ZO-
T h i r d Wm-ld Countries
18-
O I~
15el
15eZ
1563
150'I
1585
1~
1987
1588
Fig. 1. Nominal world fish catches, 1980-6. (Data from Ref. 17.)
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries [ )..~O
311
t]
319~8 - -
•
•
50 z~o~ :
see:~ ~SA
B j~c)on
54B0
0 l'J';'.'~
1'9"~
1'9130
l'gt~
191],1
1')06,
1968
Fig. 2. World tuna catch, 1976-86, by major fishing nations. (Data from Ref. 17.)
Without doubt, the global adoption of the 200-mile-zone regime has created new opportunities. However, it is important to recognize that while the declaration of an extended zone of fisheries jurisdiction may provide the framework for the rational exploitation and development of these resources, to the ultimate benefit of the coastal state, the magnitude of such benefits and the form that accrue to each country will depend not only on the nature and extent of the resources but also on the utilization and development strategy adopted. 3"p343 Especially in the case of the developing countries, the responsibility for the selection of an appropriate national strategy rests unquestionably with the government. In determining the path to be followed, each government must balance a wide range of national considerations, particularly with regard to its relations with other countries and its domestic socio-economic objectives; recognizing that many of these may be unrelated to the potential of the fishery or to the capacity of the coastal state to effectively utilize the r e s o u r c e : "p257 For example, if u n e m p l o y m e n t is the major social concern, the government may well choose to pursue a development strategy which has as a central objective the creation of work opportunities; whereas another coastal state may wish to pursue a programme which does not place undue demands on limited national resources such as energy and fresh water supplies, or alternatively one which minimizes social disruption.
Ludwig Scharmann
312
Hence, because of the different implications of alternative strategies and the specific situations and objectives of individual countries, it is unlikely that one single development and utilization programme will simultaneously be appropriate for each developing country? p-2 In fact, there are, in theory, four principal options with respect to development and utilization of fish resources and these would appear to be: (1) (2)
(3) (4)
no commercial exploitation; no or limited local participation in any of the three sectors of. the fishery: that is, the harvesting, processing and marketing are undertaken exclusively by foreign nationals, using foreign vessels and expertise, and all catch is delivered to foreign ports; a semi-autochthonous fishery, in which there is joint foreign and local participation in one or more of the key sectors; and an autochthonous fishery, in which resources are developed and utilized by local companies or individuals.
Of course, in practice, these principal options may be combined at various stages. In order to illustrate what is meant by these more or less theoretical options, practical case studies from the South Pacific are given.
2 A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE: THE SOUTH PACIFIC Between 1977 and 1986, all of the 22 island states and territories of the South Pacific declared 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). The combined E E Z s cover some 30.57 million km% compared with a combined land area of all these islands of about 555 000 km 2 (Table 1). In other words, there is a very marked difference between the land areas and E E Z s of these small islands: over the entire region there is a land/water ratio of 1:55; in Papua New Guinea this ratio is 1:7, whereas in mini-states like Tokelau or Tuvalu the possession of one single square kilometre of land is worth more than 30 000 km 2 of sea area.8,p .456
Tuna is the single most valuable resource available in this vast area, and contributes between 30 and 35% of the world's tuna harvest. Although data on commercial catches are rarely precise, in 1984 616 278 t of tuna with an ex-vessel market value of more than US$700 million was harvested in the region. 9'pATNearly 92% of the total catch is taken by distant-water fishing fleets, including vessels from Japan, the US, South Korea and Taiwan (Fig. 3).
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
313
TABLE 1
Size and Population Data on South Pacific Countries
Country
Inhabitants (1984, ×103)
Land area (kin e)
Sea area (xIO3km 2)
Land-water ratio
American Samoa Belau Cook Islands FS Micronesia Fiji
34-7 12.1 16.3 73.1 689.0
197 497 240 701 18 272
390 629 1830 2978 1290
1 : 1980 1 : 1266 I : 7625 1:4248 1:71
French Polynesia Guam Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru
159.0 115.0 61.4 30.9 7.7
3265 541 712 171 21
5030 218 3550 2131 320
1 : 1541 1:403 1:4986 1 : 12 462 1 : 15 238
148.0 3.3 16.8 3353.0 0.06
19 103 259 477 462 243 5
1740 390 1823 3120 800
1:91 1 : 1506 1:3822 1:7 1 : 160 000
Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu
263.0 1.6 106-0 8-1 130.0
27 556 10 699 26 12 189
1340 290 700 900 680
1 : 49 1 : 29 000 1:1001 1:34 615 1 : 56
Wallis et Futuna Western Samoa
12.1 162.0
225 2935
300 120
New Caledonia Niue Northern Marianas Papua New Guinea Pitcairn
South Pacific
5400.16
550 344
30 569
1:1333 1 : 41 1 : 55
Sources: Refs 6, 7 and 8.
O n l y s o m e 51 838 t ( o r a b o u t 8 % o f all t u n a fished) a r e l a n d e d by fishing vessels r e g i s t e r e d in the r e g i o n itself (Fig. 4). I°.p54 A l t h o u g h f o r c e n t u r i e s fishing has b e e n o n e o f t h e m a j o r activities s u s t a i n i n g e c o n o m i c s e l f - r e l i a n c e in s m a l l Pacific i s l a n d s , it is e s t i m a t e d t h a t a r t i s a n a l f i s h e r m e n d o n o t c a t c h m o r e t h a n s o m e 20 000 t p e r y e a r , a n d at b e s t o n e - q u a r t e r o f this a m o u n t m a y b e t u n a . I n g e n e r a l , m a r i n e e x p l o i t a t i o n o f o f f s h o r e living r e s o u r c e s b y a r t i s a n a l f i s h e r m e n o c c u r s o n a small scale. H o w e v e r , in s o m e p a r t s o f t h e r e g i o n , t u n a s t o c k s a n d o t h e r p e l a g i c fish s p e c i e s s e e m i n a d e q u a t e f o r h e a v y a n d c o n t i n u o u s fishing o p e r a tions. In t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , t h e p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s f r o m utilizing t h e r e s o u r c e a r e e x p e c t e d to b e l o w e r t h a n t h e n e c e s s a r y cost f o r a d m i n i s -
Ludwig Scharmann
314 n = 616,278
~ South P a c i f i c C. ~bg,~
t
J,Ipan
• Other
Fig. 3. Tuna catch in the South Pacific, 1984, by fishing nations. (Data from Ref. 9.)
tration. Among the 22 South Pacific island countries, this certainly applies to Nauru, Pitcairn and Tokelau, so that these three entities can be regarded as examples of Option 1: No Commercial Exploitation. Option 2: Limited or No Local Participation implies that a particular fish resource is incapable of sustaining a local industry; the coastal state does not have the necessary physical, capital and technical capacity to develop the resource, or the commercial potential is insufficient to justify a significant local involvement. In such circumstances, the
n=51,838
1
-~ ~ I m m n
I.
~rij~ Umr,~4tu ](lribat I Papua ~ . • "i'm.~lu
m Tonga
L
Fig. 4.
Tuna catches, 1984, by Pacific islands countries. (Data from Ref. 10.)
Tuna fishery Ot South Pacific countries
315
coastal state will normally endeavour to maximize its financial yield from the fishery by permitting foreign vessels access to the particular resource under conditions involving the payment of negotiated fees and other forms of compensation) ' p ~ All this applies to the South Pacific as well, since the island countries have introduced extended fisheries jurisdiction. From their point of view, licensing of distant-water fishing nations' fleets is required, because (1) their capacity to commercially harvest is small or virtually non-existent; (2) they derive financial benefits from such arrangements; and (3) they recognize the UN Law of the Sea Convenction (Article 56) obligations with respect to the utilization of surplus fish stocks within their respective EEZs. ll.p.16 At present, however, in licensing foreign fishermen, island countries primarily view their tuna stocks as a tradeable commodity. As a matter of policy, countries strive to appropriate about 5% of the value of tuna harvested, by way of access fee payments. For the entire region, this would be approximately US$30 million. Although precise data on access fees paid to Pacific island countries are not available, and furthermore because access fee payments frequently form part of development aid packages, the total amount of the financial benefits on a commercial footing is estimated to be substantially lower, probably reaching US$15-17 million annually. ~2-p2 According to data extracted from official sources, for example in 1984, annual licence fee payments were in the vicinity of US$13 million (Fig. 5). Even more important, however, is the fact that in 1984 only 10 of the 22 Pacific island states and territories had tuna access agreements with distant-water fishing nations. Furthermore, significant quantities of this financial flow went to highly subsidized territories affiliated to the United States and France, leaving little for the rest of the Pacific islands region. Nevertheless it should be pointed out that due to the smallness of most of the island economies even small amounts of cash revenue deriving from foreign fishing activities can generate substantial development opportunities. An example to illustrate this is the mini-state Tuvalu with about 7700 inhabitants. In 1984, access fee payments received were reported to be US$173054, whereas Tuvalu's total export earnings then reached only half of this amount of money or US$82 000.10,p.323 Let us now look at Option 3: Semi-Autochthonous Fishery. At least in the early stages of the development of marine resources within the area of extended jurisdiction, the establishment of joint fishing, processing and port marketing arrangements will frequently be con-
Ludwig Scharmann
316 t ~ l l i s e t Futuna Cook I s l . [ ]
"l~.,~lu~
Tr)~od 13,656,400 L'S
Soh~mn Isl. French POIgnes ta Belau Marshall I s l . ~
.
~
F3 Nlcrmncsllt k
~
Klrlbatl + Papua I~w 6ulne, a 4 ,8,
i S6e
i 1888
i 15~8
ZE88
Z~
3~Se
~
4500
tl.O~e tJs $1
Fig. 5. Tuna access fees paid to South Pacific countries, 1984. (Data from Ref. 10.)
sidered as the most practical means of promoting both local involvement in the fishery and the development of associated industries. This is especially in the case where access to approriate technology, capital and markets are perceived as being the major impediments to local development. The construction of shore-based facilities, together with the employment of local people in the maintenance or crewing of vessels and processing establishments will be seen as tangible benefits accruing from the formation of such ventures, as will improvements in the balance of trade and the domestic supply of 'locally' caught fish. The Solomon Islands Case
A successful example of the establishment of joint fishing and processing arrangements is the Solomon Islands. The country's fishing zone covers some 1.3 million km z of tuna-rich waters. 6'p-:~4;t3"p-~ Commercial offshore fisheries development began in 1972 when the government signed a joint venture fishing agreement with the Japanese Taiyo Gyogyo KK to form Solomon Taiyo Ltd (STL)---equity ratio 25 and 75%, respectively. According to the first 10-year joint venture agreement STL was granted a fishing quota of 3 0 0 0 0 t per annum. An important feature of the first contract was that the Japanese m o t h e r company Taiyo should have exclusive rights to markets and the distribution of the products of the joint venture outside the Solomon Islands.
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
317
In 1980, a second agreement was made which increased the participation of the Solomon Islands government to 50%, together with the option to purchase the controlling interest. There was also a variety of other changes, generally shifting the balance of advantage in the direction of the local partner while leaving the Japanese shareholder with adequate incentives and rewards for participation. In 1978, a second commercial tuna company, National Fisheries Developments Ltd (NFD), was established as a joint venture between the Solomon Islands government (75%) and the Solomon Taiyo Ltd (25%). The company's major activities include fishing and ship maintenance, while the marketing of NFD's products is exclusively through Solomon Taiyo and its mother company Taiyo of Japan. At present, both companies operate 34 pole-and-line boats (including 12 vessels chartered from Okinawa/Japan) and two brand-new purseseiners bought through an export finance scheme operated by the Australian government. This fleet caught nearly 45 000 t in 1986 (Fig. 6), accounting for about 70% of the tuna production harvested by vessels registered within the island countries. The two STL-owned shore facilities include cold-store facilities, ice-making and fish smoking plants, a cannery at Tulagi (opposite the capital, Honiara) and a cold-store and smoking plant at Noro (Western Province). With considerable help from the European Community, a new cannery and port are expected to be built soon at
~
T
4SOeO
I I ~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15~E
1571
Fig. 6.
1 9 7 2 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 8 1 9 7 5 1 9 0 8 1 9 8 1 1 5 8 2 19E;3 1 5 0 4 1 9 8 5 1506
Solomon Islands--tuna catch and exports by value, 1971-84. (Data from Ref. 10.)
318
Ludwig Scharmann
Noro, in order to expand output and create an alternative pole of development to the capital, Honiara. At present nearly 90% of the catch is exported as frozen product to canneries in Japan, the USA and Thailand. Only 9% is canned locally, and goes to the European Community, with the UK and Germany the principal national markets. Small quantities of tuna--about 10001500 t--are processed locally into katsuo-bushi (smoked fish), and then exported to Japan. sp462 In the Solomon Islands, fishing is the major earner of foreign exchange, being responsible for about 44% in 1987 (Fig. 7). ~PL As world tuna prices are now beginning to pick up, in future an even higher contribution to export earnings seems to be not unrealistic. However, a coherent aim should be a policy of increasing the canning and marketing sectors. This would also create new working opportunities, although employment in the tuna fishing industry has increased rapidly since operations began in 1972 (Fig. 8). What general lessons on joint fishing and processing operations can be learned from the Solomon Islands case, both from the viewpoint of this developing country and from the point of view of the foreign investor? Lesson 1: Provided there is a reasonable resource from the point of view of the foreign fishing interests, the following positive develop-
m i l l i o n t~ $
7~
6~ 5e
4e
;'8
i
Total Exports
|
T u ~ r.~por~
I
,~.~,i! ~ i
18
~o.u~c~s: Fe~] (1588) ~
e 1571
Fig. 7.
1973
15"/5
1977
15"75
Solomon Islands--tuna
1~1
15113
15~5
19el:
(1~)
198"/
exports by value, 1971-86. (Data from Refs 10 and 17.)
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
319
t408
[ ] SO l t ~ a n 1• I a r i d e r s
t97~ Fig. 8.
t97z
~s?4
tsT~
1~7a
t~o
t~z
t~4
t~
S o l o m o n I s l a n d s - - e m p l o y m e n t in t u n a fishery a n d industry. Ref. 10.)
( D a t a from
ments can be taken into account: (1) (2) (3)
an assured long-term resource access on priority terms and conditions; cost savings, particularly with regard to fuel, crewing and other labour expenses; and government assistance and encouragement, particularly during the establishment phase.
Lesson 2: From the point of view of the local partner, a semiautochthonous option may include the following attractions:
(1) (2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
access to foreign technology and capital; access to personnel capable of establishing and operating specialized plant and equipment as well as training local counterparts; minimum equity commitment and short lead-in time; ready access to established overseas markets; 'spin-offs' to other local industries in terms of increased demand for local goods and services; and creation of employment and investment opportunities.
Lesson 3: To pursue this option is, however, not without the risk of potentially undesirable longer term economic consequences such as:
(1)
encouraging the establishment of a dominant (monopolistic)
Ludwig Scharmann
320
(2)
(3) (4)
overseas controlled company, which may bias the directions in which the resource is developed; promoting the establishment of operations which may not be viable without continued foreign involvement, particularly in the processing or marketing of the product; prejudicing the opportunity for wholly owned local companies to participate in the fishery; and the repatriation of profits.
Option 4: Autochthonous Fishery. The capacity of a coastal state to effectively and realistically pursue a development strategy which involves a pre-eminent role for local industry, i.e. option 4: an autochthonous fishery, will essentially depend upon: (a) (b) (c) (d)
the nature, extent and commercial potential of the resource; availability of finance on suitable terms and conditions, such as so-called 'soft loans'; previous local experience in harvesting and utilization of that resource; and the availability of the necessary technical and management skills.
In those situations where a high degree of local equity participation is feasible, the long-term economic advantages will generally be associated with a greater degree of local commercial control over the company's operations than would be the case under a joint venture arrangement, and this may include: (a) (b)
a higher proportion of profits being retained locally; and a greater tendency to utilize local goods and services and to be responsible to the local market.
The Kiribati Case
At present in the South Pacific, we see only a few successful cases of local enterprise. Probably the highest priority to establish an autochthonous industrial tuna fishery is exemplified by the government of Kiribati. The nation's E E Z (one of the largest in the Pacific, covering some 3-5 million km 2) is rich in tuna. Long-distance fishing vessels, notably from Japan and the US, operate in Kiribati waters and annual fee receipts are around US$2 million, accounting for about 25% of the government's total annual expenditure. Apart from the generation of national income, government revenue and foreign exchange via licence
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
321
fees, it is also a basic aim of national fisheries policies to create employment opportunities in the 70 000-people state. The main vehicle for the development of the Kiribati tuna fishery is a government-owned national fisheries company, established in 1981, after two second-hand catcher boats were acquired in Japan under development aid conditions. The fleet of catcher vessels was augmented in 1983 by two more pole-and-liners acquired from Britain and the European Community. On shore, a brine freezing/ice-making facility is in operation.~5"PM6 Since 1987, a new jetty financed under E E C development assistance conditions allows the pole-and-line vessels to berth alongside to offload their catch and take on bunkers, instead of carrying out these operations at sea by lighters. Storage and transport of the export catch to canneries in Fiji and American Samoa is done by the use of a mother ship, but also additional space on shore to be used from time to time. Including the workers of the company's own baitfish farm, some 200 people are employed. In this respect, it is worthy of emphasis that from the outset almost all of the 120 crew members have been recruited locally. The total catch in the tuna fleet was 1858 t in 1988, representing an export value of about 1.4 million US$. 16'p-24 This amount of money means a lot for a mini-state like Kiribati. In 1986 for example, fishing accounted for 77 percent of export earnings and tuna production is an undoubted growth area for the future (Fig. 9). Although the Kiribati case has proved successful in that an autochthonous fishing industry has been established within a period of only a few years, development assistance provided notably by the European Community and Japan has undoubtedly played a key role. It should be pointed out--and this is a lesson to learn--that the difficulties usually associated with heavy initial capital commitment in Kiribati have been minimized by vessels being acquired under development aid conditions. When assessing the feasibility of local fishing ventures in general, the following critical aspects should be taken into consideration: (a) (b)
the necessity for a relatively high initial capital risk commitment; and high initial training and consultancy expenses.
Furthermore, the Kiribati case shows that in the short to medium term, it will be unlikely that local enterprise will be capable of realizing the full potential of the resource, leaving the way open for limited access by foreign vessels to surplus resources. Apart from satisfying the obliga-
Ludwig Scharmann
322
1M
e. 1975
1580
1501
190Z
1503
190,1
1905
1506
1987
1508
Fig. 9. Kiribati--tuna exports 1979-86 by value. (Data from Ref. 17.)
tions of the coastal state deriving from Article 56 of the Law of the Sea Convention, foreign access does offer the opportunity to: (a) (b) (c)
gain a better appreciation of the resource and its commercial potential; supplement supplies to local processors; and generate funds via licence fees, which may be utilized to promote local participation in the fishery.
3 CONCLUDING REMARKS The UN Law of the Sea Convention has brought to the fore the importance and potential of ocean space and its resources in national economic and social development. Due to the absence of extensive non-living resources in most coastal or island Third World countries, this potential at present lies more in the area of fisheries. Consequently, the development of a significant local fishing industry is widely seen as an easy and rapid way to benefit from the use of the oceans. It is important to recognize that the declaration of an extended zone of resource jurisdiction may provide only the framework for rational exploitation. The magnitude of the benefits and the form they accrue to
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
323
each community will d e p e n d not only on the nature and the extent of the marine resource, but also on the utilization and d e v e l o p m e n t strategy adopted. REFERENCES 1. Buchholz, H. J., Development tasks of peculiar states: the small island countries of the South Pacific. In New Approaches to Development Cooperation with South Pacific Countries, ed. H. J. Buchholz. Papers of the Institute for International Relations, No. 11, Saarbriicken and Fort Lauderdale, 1987, pp. 21-37. 2. Uthoff, D., Seefischversorgung in der Dritten Welt--Entwicklung, Tendenzen, Probleme. Essener Geographische Arbeiten, 17 (1989) 331-60. 3. Hartje, V. J., Theorie und Politik der Meeresnutzung. Eine 6konomischinstitutionelle Analyse. Campus, Frankfurt/M. and New York, 1983. 4. Alexander, L. M., Organizational responses to new ocean sicence and technology developments. Ocean Development and International Law Journal, 9(3/4) (1981)241-68. 5. Franklin, P., The Economic Aspects of Fisheries Development and Management. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1980. 6. Buchholz, H. J., Seerechtszonen im Pazifischen Ozean. Australien/ Neuseeland, Sfidpazifik. Mitteilungen des Instituts ffir Asienkunde, 137, Hamburg, 1984. 7. Chandra, R., West German and European cooperation with the South Pacific: a Pacific view of possible roles. In New Approaches to Development Cooperation with South Pacific Countries, ed. H. J. Buchholz. Papers of the Institute for International Relations, No. 11, Saarbrficken and Fort Lauderdale, 1987, pp. 39-56. 8. Scharmann, L., Strategien zur Nutzung der lebenden Meeres-ressourcen aus der Sicht kleiner Entwicklungsl/~nder. Das Beispiel der Mikrostaaten und--territorien im siidpazifischen Inselraum. Berliner geographische Studien, 25 (1987) 455-68. 9. Clark, L. G., South Pacific Ocean Fisheries. Forum Fisheries Agency Report No. 85/2, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1985. 10. Scharmann, L., Seerecht und Fischwirtschaft im S/idpazifik. Chancen und Hemmnisse der Meeresnutzung fiir den Entwicklungs-prozeB insularer Kleinstaaten. Thesis, Hannover University, 1988. 11. Doulman, D. J., Fishing for Tuna: The Operation of Distant-Water Fleets in the Pacific Islands Region. East-West Center, Pacific Islands Development Program, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1986. Doulman, D. J. (ed.), Tuna Issues and Perspectives in the Pacific Islands Region. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1987. 12. Forum Fisheries Agency, Overview of Fishing Activities of Distant Water Fishing Nations in EEZs of FFA member countries, FFA Report No. 89/26. Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1989. 13. Prescott, J. R. V., Maritime boundary agreements: Australia-Indonesia and Australia-Solomon Islands. Marine Policy Reports, 1(1) (1989) 37-45.
324
Ludwig Scharmann
14. Fisheries Department Annual Report 1987. Solomon Islands Government, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1989. 15. Shepard, M. P. & Clark, L. G., South Pacific Fisheries Development Needs. Main Report. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1984. 16. Kiribati Statistical Yearbook 1988. Statistics Office, Ministry of Finance, Bairiki, Tarawa, Republic of Kiribati, 1989. 17. Food and Agriculture Organization Yearbook 1988, Vol. 66, Fishe~ Statistics, Catches and Landings. FAO, Rome, 1990.
The U N Convention on the Law of the Sea and its Implications for Third World Countries: The Case of Tuna Fishery in South Pacific Countries Ludwig Scharmann Geographisches Institut, Universit~it Hannover, Schneiderberg 50, D-3000 Hannover 1, FRG (Presented at the Comission on Marine Geography meeting, Wilhelmshaven. May 1989) A BS TRA CT The significance of the EEZ for the 22 developing island countries and territories of the South Pacific is best brought out when one realizes that the combined area of these zones covers 30.57 million km 2, contributing at least 30 percent of the world's tuna harvest each year. However, presently 90 percent of the region's total catches is taken by distantwater fishing fleets from Japan, the US, South Korea and Taiwan. In order to increase the benefits derived from the exploitation of their tuna resources, each Pacific island country has to select its own development strategy to effectively utilize the resource. In this paper, some principal development options are illustrated by case studies from the South Pacific.
1 T H E LAW OF T H E SEA A N D FISHING ISSUES Although the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is not widely ratified and therefore not yet legally in force, the Convention has an impact on customary norms in international law that governs the behaviour of nations in the oceans. One of the major consequences for state practice is the worldwide acceptance of the legitimacy of coastal states extending their jurisdiction over marine resources to 200 nautical miles from their coasts. This process towards the nationalization of the oceans is responsible for a related positive movement for economic independence amongst some countries of the Third World. These developments have given rise not only to an 309 Ocean & Shoreline Management 0951-8312/91/$03.50 (~ 1991 ElsevierSciencePublishers Ltd, England. Printed in Northern Ireland
310
Ludwig Scharmann
increased awareness by certain states of the significance of their marine resources, but also to an expectation that considerable benefit may accrue from their development and exploitation. [. p 30 In many cases, due to the absence of extensive non-living resources (both offshore and land-based) the d e v e l o p m e n t of a significant local fishing industry is often seen as an easy and rapid way to achieve a greater degree of economic autonomy and prosperity. Because of this, the following discussion is restricted to issues relating to fisheries only. Making this limitation, even though there is the danger of drawing generalizations, as between developing countries, wide differences in almost every relevant social, political and economic pattern appear. Figures from recent world catch statistics show, there are clear indications of change favouring the Third World, whereas the share for the developed countries in toto is decreasing (Fig. 1). Of course, this does not mean that all of the Third World countries have increased their fish production, and certainly not all of the industrialized countries are standing in a position to lose. 2"p 336 As far as tuna catches are concerned, one can note among the developing countries some forerunners that include Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela and Ecuador. On the other hand, traditional major fishing nations like Japan, the USA, Spain and France have been able to defend their leading positions (Fig. 2).
[million
t]
5~
- ~- " -
~ ~
I .~
[ ] De'~.~l op,cd Count~,. [c:s ZO-
T h i r d Wm-ld Countries
18-
O I~
15el
15eZ
1563
150'I
1585
1~
1987
1588
Fig. 1. Nominal world fish catches, 1980-6. (Data from Ref. 17.)
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries [ )..~O
311
t]
319~8 - -
•
•
50 z~o~ :
see:~ ~SA
B j~c)on
54B0
0 l'J';'.'~
1'9"~
1'9130
l'gt~
191],1
1')06,
1968
Fig. 2. World tuna catch, 1976-86, by major fishing nations. (Data from Ref. 17.)
Without doubt, the global adoption of the 200-mile-zone regime has created new opportunities. However, it is important to recognize that while the declaration of an extended zone of fisheries jurisdiction may provide the framework for the rational exploitation and development of these resources, to the ultimate benefit of the coastal state, the magnitude of such benefits and the form that accrue to each country will depend not only on the nature and extent of the resources but also on the utilization and development strategy adopted. 3"p343 Especially in the case of the developing countries, the responsibility for the selection of an appropriate national strategy rests unquestionably with the government. In determining the path to be followed, each government must balance a wide range of national considerations, particularly with regard to its relations with other countries and its domestic socio-economic objectives; recognizing that many of these may be unrelated to the potential of the fishery or to the capacity of the coastal state to effectively utilize the r e s o u r c e : "p257 For example, if u n e m p l o y m e n t is the major social concern, the government may well choose to pursue a development strategy which has as a central objective the creation of work opportunities; whereas another coastal state may wish to pursue a programme which does not place undue demands on limited national resources such as energy and fresh water supplies, or alternatively one which minimizes social disruption.
Ludwig Scharmann
312
Hence, because of the different implications of alternative strategies and the specific situations and objectives of individual countries, it is unlikely that one single development and utilization programme will simultaneously be appropriate for each developing country? p-2 In fact, there are, in theory, four principal options with respect to development and utilization of fish resources and these would appear to be: (1) (2)
(3) (4)
no commercial exploitation; no or limited local participation in any of the three sectors of. the fishery: that is, the harvesting, processing and marketing are undertaken exclusively by foreign nationals, using foreign vessels and expertise, and all catch is delivered to foreign ports; a semi-autochthonous fishery, in which there is joint foreign and local participation in one or more of the key sectors; and an autochthonous fishery, in which resources are developed and utilized by local companies or individuals.
Of course, in practice, these principal options may be combined at various stages. In order to illustrate what is meant by these more or less theoretical options, practical case studies from the South Pacific are given.
2 A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE: THE SOUTH PACIFIC Between 1977 and 1986, all of the 22 island states and territories of the South Pacific declared 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). The combined E E Z s cover some 30.57 million km% compared with a combined land area of all these islands of about 555 000 km 2 (Table 1). In other words, there is a very marked difference between the land areas and E E Z s of these small islands: over the entire region there is a land/water ratio of 1:55; in Papua New Guinea this ratio is 1:7, whereas in mini-states like Tokelau or Tuvalu the possession of one single square kilometre of land is worth more than 30 000 km 2 of sea area.8,p .456
Tuna is the single most valuable resource available in this vast area, and contributes between 30 and 35% of the world's tuna harvest. Although data on commercial catches are rarely precise, in 1984 616 278 t of tuna with an ex-vessel market value of more than US$700 million was harvested in the region. 9'pATNearly 92% of the total catch is taken by distant-water fishing fleets, including vessels from Japan, the US, South Korea and Taiwan (Fig. 3).
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
313
TABLE 1
Size and Population Data on South Pacific Countries
Country
Inhabitants (1984, ×103)
Land area (kin e)
Sea area (xIO3km 2)
Land-water ratio
American Samoa Belau Cook Islands FS Micronesia Fiji
34-7 12.1 16.3 73.1 689.0
197 497 240 701 18 272
390 629 1830 2978 1290
1 : 1980 1 : 1266 I : 7625 1:4248 1:71
French Polynesia Guam Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru
159.0 115.0 61.4 30.9 7.7
3265 541 712 171 21
5030 218 3550 2131 320
1 : 1541 1:403 1:4986 1 : 12 462 1 : 15 238
148.0 3.3 16.8 3353.0 0.06
19 103 259 477 462 243 5
1740 390 1823 3120 800
1:91 1 : 1506 1:3822 1:7 1 : 160 000
Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu
263.0 1.6 106-0 8-1 130.0
27 556 10 699 26 12 189
1340 290 700 900 680
1 : 49 1 : 29 000 1:1001 1:34 615 1 : 56
Wallis et Futuna Western Samoa
12.1 162.0
225 2935
300 120
New Caledonia Niue Northern Marianas Papua New Guinea Pitcairn
South Pacific
5400.16
550 344
30 569
1:1333 1 : 41 1 : 55
Sources: Refs 6, 7 and 8.
O n l y s o m e 51 838 t ( o r a b o u t 8 % o f all t u n a fished) a r e l a n d e d by fishing vessels r e g i s t e r e d in the r e g i o n itself (Fig. 4). I°.p54 A l t h o u g h f o r c e n t u r i e s fishing has b e e n o n e o f t h e m a j o r activities s u s t a i n i n g e c o n o m i c s e l f - r e l i a n c e in s m a l l Pacific i s l a n d s , it is e s t i m a t e d t h a t a r t i s a n a l f i s h e r m e n d o n o t c a t c h m o r e t h a n s o m e 20 000 t p e r y e a r , a n d at b e s t o n e - q u a r t e r o f this a m o u n t m a y b e t u n a . I n g e n e r a l , m a r i n e e x p l o i t a t i o n o f o f f s h o r e living r e s o u r c e s b y a r t i s a n a l f i s h e r m e n o c c u r s o n a small scale. H o w e v e r , in s o m e p a r t s o f t h e r e g i o n , t u n a s t o c k s a n d o t h e r p e l a g i c fish s p e c i e s s e e m i n a d e q u a t e f o r h e a v y a n d c o n t i n u o u s fishing o p e r a tions. In t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , t h e p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s f r o m utilizing t h e r e s o u r c e a r e e x p e c t e d to b e l o w e r t h a n t h e n e c e s s a r y cost f o r a d m i n i s -
Ludwig Scharmann
314 n = 616,278
~ South P a c i f i c C. ~bg,~
t
J,Ipan
• Other
Fig. 3. Tuna catch in the South Pacific, 1984, by fishing nations. (Data from Ref. 9.)
tration. Among the 22 South Pacific island countries, this certainly applies to Nauru, Pitcairn and Tokelau, so that these three entities can be regarded as examples of Option 1: No Commercial Exploitation. Option 2: Limited or No Local Participation implies that a particular fish resource is incapable of sustaining a local industry; the coastal state does not have the necessary physical, capital and technical capacity to develop the resource, or the commercial potential is insufficient to justify a significant local involvement. In such circumstances, the
n=51,838
1
-~ ~ I m m n
I.
~rij~ Umr,~4tu ](lribat I Papua ~ . • "i'm.~lu
m Tonga
L
Fig. 4.
Tuna catches, 1984, by Pacific islands countries. (Data from Ref. 10.)
Tuna fishery Ot South Pacific countries
315
coastal state will normally endeavour to maximize its financial yield from the fishery by permitting foreign vessels access to the particular resource under conditions involving the payment of negotiated fees and other forms of compensation) ' p ~ All this applies to the South Pacific as well, since the island countries have introduced extended fisheries jurisdiction. From their point of view, licensing of distant-water fishing nations' fleets is required, because (1) their capacity to commercially harvest is small or virtually non-existent; (2) they derive financial benefits from such arrangements; and (3) they recognize the UN Law of the Sea Convenction (Article 56) obligations with respect to the utilization of surplus fish stocks within their respective EEZs. ll.p.16 At present, however, in licensing foreign fishermen, island countries primarily view their tuna stocks as a tradeable commodity. As a matter of policy, countries strive to appropriate about 5% of the value of tuna harvested, by way of access fee payments. For the entire region, this would be approximately US$30 million. Although precise data on access fees paid to Pacific island countries are not available, and furthermore because access fee payments frequently form part of development aid packages, the total amount of the financial benefits on a commercial footing is estimated to be substantially lower, probably reaching US$15-17 million annually. ~2-p2 According to data extracted from official sources, for example in 1984, annual licence fee payments were in the vicinity of US$13 million (Fig. 5). Even more important, however, is the fact that in 1984 only 10 of the 22 Pacific island states and territories had tuna access agreements with distant-water fishing nations. Furthermore, significant quantities of this financial flow went to highly subsidized territories affiliated to the United States and France, leaving little for the rest of the Pacific islands region. Nevertheless it should be pointed out that due to the smallness of most of the island economies even small amounts of cash revenue deriving from foreign fishing activities can generate substantial development opportunities. An example to illustrate this is the mini-state Tuvalu with about 7700 inhabitants. In 1984, access fee payments received were reported to be US$173054, whereas Tuvalu's total export earnings then reached only half of this amount of money or US$82 000.10,p.323 Let us now look at Option 3: Semi-Autochthonous Fishery. At least in the early stages of the development of marine resources within the area of extended jurisdiction, the establishment of joint fishing, processing and port marketing arrangements will frequently be con-
Ludwig Scharmann
316 t ~ l l i s e t Futuna Cook I s l . [ ]
"l~.,~lu~
Tr)~od 13,656,400 L'S
Soh~mn Isl. French POIgnes ta Belau Marshall I s l . ~
.
~
F3 Nlcrmncsllt k
~
Klrlbatl + Papua I~w 6ulne, a 4 ,8,
i S6e
i 1888
i 15~8
ZE88
Z~
3~Se
~
4500
tl.O~e tJs $1
Fig. 5. Tuna access fees paid to South Pacific countries, 1984. (Data from Ref. 10.)
sidered as the most practical means of promoting both local involvement in the fishery and the development of associated industries. This is especially in the case where access to approriate technology, capital and markets are perceived as being the major impediments to local development. The construction of shore-based facilities, together with the employment of local people in the maintenance or crewing of vessels and processing establishments will be seen as tangible benefits accruing from the formation of such ventures, as will improvements in the balance of trade and the domestic supply of 'locally' caught fish. The Solomon Islands Case
A successful example of the establishment of joint fishing and processing arrangements is the Solomon Islands. The country's fishing zone covers some 1.3 million km z of tuna-rich waters. 6'p-:~4;t3"p-~ Commercial offshore fisheries development began in 1972 when the government signed a joint venture fishing agreement with the Japanese Taiyo Gyogyo KK to form Solomon Taiyo Ltd (STL)---equity ratio 25 and 75%, respectively. According to the first 10-year joint venture agreement STL was granted a fishing quota of 3 0 0 0 0 t per annum. An important feature of the first contract was that the Japanese m o t h e r company Taiyo should have exclusive rights to markets and the distribution of the products of the joint venture outside the Solomon Islands.
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
317
In 1980, a second agreement was made which increased the participation of the Solomon Islands government to 50%, together with the option to purchase the controlling interest. There was also a variety of other changes, generally shifting the balance of advantage in the direction of the local partner while leaving the Japanese shareholder with adequate incentives and rewards for participation. In 1978, a second commercial tuna company, National Fisheries Developments Ltd (NFD), was established as a joint venture between the Solomon Islands government (75%) and the Solomon Taiyo Ltd (25%). The company's major activities include fishing and ship maintenance, while the marketing of NFD's products is exclusively through Solomon Taiyo and its mother company Taiyo of Japan. At present, both companies operate 34 pole-and-line boats (including 12 vessels chartered from Okinawa/Japan) and two brand-new purseseiners bought through an export finance scheme operated by the Australian government. This fleet caught nearly 45 000 t in 1986 (Fig. 6), accounting for about 70% of the tuna production harvested by vessels registered within the island countries. The two STL-owned shore facilities include cold-store facilities, ice-making and fish smoking plants, a cannery at Tulagi (opposite the capital, Honiara) and a cold-store and smoking plant at Noro (Western Province). With considerable help from the European Community, a new cannery and port are expected to be built soon at
~
T
4SOeO
I I ~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15~E
1571
Fig. 6.
1 9 7 2 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 8 1 9 7 5 1 9 0 8 1 9 8 1 1 5 8 2 19E;3 1 5 0 4 1 9 8 5 1506
Solomon Islands--tuna catch and exports by value, 1971-84. (Data from Ref. 10.)
318
Ludwig Scharmann
Noro, in order to expand output and create an alternative pole of development to the capital, Honiara. At present nearly 90% of the catch is exported as frozen product to canneries in Japan, the USA and Thailand. Only 9% is canned locally, and goes to the European Community, with the UK and Germany the principal national markets. Small quantities of tuna--about 10001500 t--are processed locally into katsuo-bushi (smoked fish), and then exported to Japan. sp462 In the Solomon Islands, fishing is the major earner of foreign exchange, being responsible for about 44% in 1987 (Fig. 7). ~PL As world tuna prices are now beginning to pick up, in future an even higher contribution to export earnings seems to be not unrealistic. However, a coherent aim should be a policy of increasing the canning and marketing sectors. This would also create new working opportunities, although employment in the tuna fishing industry has increased rapidly since operations began in 1972 (Fig. 8). What general lessons on joint fishing and processing operations can be learned from the Solomon Islands case, both from the viewpoint of this developing country and from the point of view of the foreign investor? Lesson 1: Provided there is a reasonable resource from the point of view of the foreign fishing interests, the following positive develop-
m i l l i o n t~ $
7~
6~ 5e
4e
;'8
i
Total Exports
|
T u ~ r.~por~
I
,~.~,i! ~ i
18
~o.u~c~s: Fe~] (1588) ~
e 1571
Fig. 7.
1973
15"/5
1977
15"75
Solomon Islands--tuna
1~1
15113
15~5
19el:
(1~)
198"/
exports by value, 1971-86. (Data from Refs 10 and 17.)
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
319
t408
[ ] SO l t ~ a n 1• I a r i d e r s
t97~ Fig. 8.
t97z
~s?4
tsT~
1~7a
t~o
t~z
t~4
t~
S o l o m o n I s l a n d s - - e m p l o y m e n t in t u n a fishery a n d industry. Ref. 10.)
( D a t a from
ments can be taken into account: (1) (2) (3)
an assured long-term resource access on priority terms and conditions; cost savings, particularly with regard to fuel, crewing and other labour expenses; and government assistance and encouragement, particularly during the establishment phase.
Lesson 2: From the point of view of the local partner, a semiautochthonous option may include the following attractions:
(1) (2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
access to foreign technology and capital; access to personnel capable of establishing and operating specialized plant and equipment as well as training local counterparts; minimum equity commitment and short lead-in time; ready access to established overseas markets; 'spin-offs' to other local industries in terms of increased demand for local goods and services; and creation of employment and investment opportunities.
Lesson 3: To pursue this option is, however, not without the risk of potentially undesirable longer term economic consequences such as:
(1)
encouraging the establishment of a dominant (monopolistic)
Ludwig Scharmann
320
(2)
(3) (4)
overseas controlled company, which may bias the directions in which the resource is developed; promoting the establishment of operations which may not be viable without continued foreign involvement, particularly in the processing or marketing of the product; prejudicing the opportunity for wholly owned local companies to participate in the fishery; and the repatriation of profits.
Option 4: Autochthonous Fishery. The capacity of a coastal state to effectively and realistically pursue a development strategy which involves a pre-eminent role for local industry, i.e. option 4: an autochthonous fishery, will essentially depend upon: (a) (b) (c) (d)
the nature, extent and commercial potential of the resource; availability of finance on suitable terms and conditions, such as so-called 'soft loans'; previous local experience in harvesting and utilization of that resource; and the availability of the necessary technical and management skills.
In those situations where a high degree of local equity participation is feasible, the long-term economic advantages will generally be associated with a greater degree of local commercial control over the company's operations than would be the case under a joint venture arrangement, and this may include: (a) (b)
a higher proportion of profits being retained locally; and a greater tendency to utilize local goods and services and to be responsible to the local market.
The Kiribati Case
At present in the South Pacific, we see only a few successful cases of local enterprise. Probably the highest priority to establish an autochthonous industrial tuna fishery is exemplified by the government of Kiribati. The nation's E E Z (one of the largest in the Pacific, covering some 3-5 million km 2) is rich in tuna. Long-distance fishing vessels, notably from Japan and the US, operate in Kiribati waters and annual fee receipts are around US$2 million, accounting for about 25% of the government's total annual expenditure. Apart from the generation of national income, government revenue and foreign exchange via licence
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
321
fees, it is also a basic aim of national fisheries policies to create employment opportunities in the 70 000-people state. The main vehicle for the development of the Kiribati tuna fishery is a government-owned national fisheries company, established in 1981, after two second-hand catcher boats were acquired in Japan under development aid conditions. The fleet of catcher vessels was augmented in 1983 by two more pole-and-liners acquired from Britain and the European Community. On shore, a brine freezing/ice-making facility is in operation.~5"PM6 Since 1987, a new jetty financed under E E C development assistance conditions allows the pole-and-line vessels to berth alongside to offload their catch and take on bunkers, instead of carrying out these operations at sea by lighters. Storage and transport of the export catch to canneries in Fiji and American Samoa is done by the use of a mother ship, but also additional space on shore to be used from time to time. Including the workers of the company's own baitfish farm, some 200 people are employed. In this respect, it is worthy of emphasis that from the outset almost all of the 120 crew members have been recruited locally. The total catch in the tuna fleet was 1858 t in 1988, representing an export value of about 1.4 million US$. 16'p-24 This amount of money means a lot for a mini-state like Kiribati. In 1986 for example, fishing accounted for 77 percent of export earnings and tuna production is an undoubted growth area for the future (Fig. 9). Although the Kiribati case has proved successful in that an autochthonous fishing industry has been established within a period of only a few years, development assistance provided notably by the European Community and Japan has undoubtedly played a key role. It should be pointed out--and this is a lesson to learn--that the difficulties usually associated with heavy initial capital commitment in Kiribati have been minimized by vessels being acquired under development aid conditions. When assessing the feasibility of local fishing ventures in general, the following critical aspects should be taken into consideration: (a) (b)
the necessity for a relatively high initial capital risk commitment; and high initial training and consultancy expenses.
Furthermore, the Kiribati case shows that in the short to medium term, it will be unlikely that local enterprise will be capable of realizing the full potential of the resource, leaving the way open for limited access by foreign vessels to surplus resources. Apart from satisfying the obliga-
Ludwig Scharmann
322
1M
e. 1975
1580
1501
190Z
1503
190,1
1905
1506
1987
1508
Fig. 9. Kiribati--tuna exports 1979-86 by value. (Data from Ref. 17.)
tions of the coastal state deriving from Article 56 of the Law of the Sea Convention, foreign access does offer the opportunity to: (a) (b) (c)
gain a better appreciation of the resource and its commercial potential; supplement supplies to local processors; and generate funds via licence fees, which may be utilized to promote local participation in the fishery.
3 CONCLUDING REMARKS The UN Law of the Sea Convention has brought to the fore the importance and potential of ocean space and its resources in national economic and social development. Due to the absence of extensive non-living resources in most coastal or island Third World countries, this potential at present lies more in the area of fisheries. Consequently, the development of a significant local fishing industry is widely seen as an easy and rapid way to benefit from the use of the oceans. It is important to recognize that the declaration of an extended zone of resource jurisdiction may provide only the framework for rational exploitation. The magnitude of the benefits and the form they accrue to
Tuna fishery in South Pacific countries
323
each community will d e p e n d not only on the nature and the extent of the marine resource, but also on the utilization and d e v e l o p m e n t strategy adopted. REFERENCES 1. Buchholz, H. J., Development tasks of peculiar states: the small island countries of the South Pacific. In New Approaches to Development Cooperation with South Pacific Countries, ed. H. J. Buchholz. Papers of the Institute for International Relations, No. 11, Saarbriicken and Fort Lauderdale, 1987, pp. 21-37. 2. Uthoff, D., Seefischversorgung in der Dritten Welt--Entwicklung, Tendenzen, Probleme. Essener Geographische Arbeiten, 17 (1989) 331-60. 3. Hartje, V. J., Theorie und Politik der Meeresnutzung. Eine 6konomischinstitutionelle Analyse. Campus, Frankfurt/M. and New York, 1983. 4. Alexander, L. M., Organizational responses to new ocean sicence and technology developments. Ocean Development and International Law Journal, 9(3/4) (1981)241-68. 5. Franklin, P., The Economic Aspects of Fisheries Development and Management. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1980. 6. Buchholz, H. J., Seerechtszonen im Pazifischen Ozean. Australien/ Neuseeland, Sfidpazifik. Mitteilungen des Instituts ffir Asienkunde, 137, Hamburg, 1984. 7. Chandra, R., West German and European cooperation with the South Pacific: a Pacific view of possible roles. In New Approaches to Development Cooperation with South Pacific Countries, ed. H. J. Buchholz. Papers of the Institute for International Relations, No. 11, Saarbrficken and Fort Lauderdale, 1987, pp. 39-56. 8. Scharmann, L., Strategien zur Nutzung der lebenden Meeres-ressourcen aus der Sicht kleiner Entwicklungsl/~nder. Das Beispiel der Mikrostaaten und--territorien im siidpazifischen Inselraum. Berliner geographische Studien, 25 (1987) 455-68. 9. Clark, L. G., South Pacific Ocean Fisheries. Forum Fisheries Agency Report No. 85/2, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1985. 10. Scharmann, L., Seerecht und Fischwirtschaft im S/idpazifik. Chancen und Hemmnisse der Meeresnutzung fiir den Entwicklungs-prozeB insularer Kleinstaaten. Thesis, Hannover University, 1988. 11. Doulman, D. J., Fishing for Tuna: The Operation of Distant-Water Fleets in the Pacific Islands Region. East-West Center, Pacific Islands Development Program, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1986. Doulman, D. J. (ed.), Tuna Issues and Perspectives in the Pacific Islands Region. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1987. 12. Forum Fisheries Agency, Overview of Fishing Activities of Distant Water Fishing Nations in EEZs of FFA member countries, FFA Report No. 89/26. Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1989. 13. Prescott, J. R. V., Maritime boundary agreements: Australia-Indonesia and Australia-Solomon Islands. Marine Policy Reports, 1(1) (1989) 37-45.
324
Ludwig Scharmann
14. Fisheries Department Annual Report 1987. Solomon Islands Government, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1989. 15. Shepard, M. P. & Clark, L. G., South Pacific Fisheries Development Needs. Main Report. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 1984. 16. Kiribati Statistical Yearbook 1988. Statistics Office, Ministry of Finance, Bairiki, Tarawa, Republic of Kiribati, 1989. 17. Food and Agriculture Organization Yearbook 1988, Vol. 66, Fishe~ Statistics, Catches and Landings. FAO, Rome, 1990.