International Cooperation Works

Interview

We asked David Benton of the US Arctic Research Commission to comment on international cooperation in the North-Pacific, and to give his perspective on international activities in the Arctic.

Interview

We asked David Benton of the US Arctic Research Commission to comment on international cooperation in the North-Pacific, and to give his perspective on international activities in the Arctic.

What are the mechanisms currently regulating fisheries in the North Pacific? Do you find them adequate?

In the North Pacific, there are two general regimes. There is a domestic regime for other countries around the Rim, and then there is an international regime for waters beyond the jurisdiction of the coastal nations.

Most of the countries around the North Pacific Rim – Japan, Russia, Canada and the United States have very robust fishery management regimes in terms of the scientific assessment of stocks and enforcement mechanisms for ensuring that fisheries are conducted properly. In my experience, each of the four countries in the very northern part of the Pacific Ocean is doing a reasonably good job of managing their fisheries to ensure that fish stocks are taken care of and that economic enterprises are profitable, good for communities, and good for their countries, their fishermen, and the overall industry.

Yet, there’re always problems. Every country has its own areas where improvements can be made. This includes the United States as well. In international waters beyond the jurisdiction of coastal nations, we have made great strides in securing international agreements that ensure that overfishing does not occur; joint enforcement by the various countries is robust.

For example, back in the 1970-s and 1980-s, there were large fleets operating in the North Pacific Ocean, in the Bering Sea, and in international waters that were significantly overfishing various fish stocks. This had very dramatic and negative effects on salmon, on pollock and other fish species, as well as on other living marine resources like sea birds, marine mammals, and in some areas sea turtles and whales. We, the United States, joined with the then Soviet Union and later the Russian Federation, and began some joint actions to address these problems. For the first time we brought our two countries together, and in doing so, we developed some proposals that we jointly took to Canada and Japan. And after rounds of negotiations we were able to do that, and the legacy of those joint actions is the enforcement regime in the North Pacific Ocean that was jointly conducted by the Russian Federation, Japan, Canada and the United States. And by doing that, we then were able to also later bring in China and to some degree the Republic of Korea.

Photo: David Benton

Should there be an international institution bringing about the enforcement of fishery quotes and ecological norms or should each country separately deal with these problems?

I do not believe that individual countries can address the problems alone. We’re a part of the world community, our economies, communications, the resources themselves do not respect national boundaries, and each country that tries to act on its own unilaterally will always be at a disadvantage. When we work together, it’s much better.

What we have now is not a comprehensive, international regime that takes care of everything. We have an agreement in the Bering Sea for the international waters, the central Bering Pollock agreement that deals with the problems that we face in the Bering Sea, the so-called overhaul of the Bering Sea, and overfishing by foreign nations. We are able to successfully get that again because of the partnership between the United States and the Russian Federation. We dealt with salmon issues wit the same kind of mechanism.

But there is a lot, there is a host of other natural resource issues in the vast area of the North Pacific Ocean, from basically Hawaii, north, and from North America to Asia that need to be addressed.

Recently there has been a successful effort to put together a new North Pacific Fisheries Commission. The convention was just concluded about a year and a half ago. The nations that were involved are now in the process of implementing that convention; they have to set up all the institutional arrangements to make it work. The four key players were Japan, Canada, the Russian Federation and the United States. China joined in that effort, and that was a very welcome addition. And because of that, the entity of Taiwan was also able to be brought in, and that was a very important addition as well as the Republic of Korea.

And that institutional arrangement will over time provide an umbrella for how you deal with a vast area and a wider array of resource management issues. It has the capacity for dealing with enforcement, for dealing with multilateral science initiatives and ecological concerns. We don’t know if it’s going to be successful yet, because it’s just started, and success will depend on the four main players being able to work together.

In my experience, when the United States and Russia join hands, when we work together, we are really successful.

Photo: Arctic Council

What is your estimation of US-Russia activities in the sphere?

We cooperate very well in the North Pacific and the Bering Sea. And an example of this success is that we have the longest maritime boundary between any two nations in the world. And we have very little conflict along that boundary. We have very good cooperation between Russian border guards and the United States coast guards in terms of enforcement and search and rescue operations. And our fishery managers exchange data and information on a regular basis. That all works fairly well.

However, where we have a gap, in my view, is in the Arctic, in the area of the Northern Bering Sea and north into the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic Ocean. We’ve not had a reason until recent times to start thinking about how to cooperate, because of the ice there was little activity. Now that region is opening up. I believe that the United States and Russia should look at some bilateral arrangements that would deal with enforcement, with science, and cooperation or at least coordination in terms of our management activities for things like fisheries.

The first step in the relationship that will have to be built over time, in my mind, is science. We have good projects that we are cooperating on. But they’re very specific. What we don’t have, in my view, is an institutional arrangement that would have long-lasting durability over decades, and we need that. And we should do that bilaterally in our shared boundary. It should be a Russia and United States -led, reciprocal scientific cooperation agreement that helps us on a regular basis to plan and coordinate our research activities, share resources and achieve the joint interests that we have in that region.

The second thing is the working relationship between the Russian border guards and the United States Coast Guard. That’s a pretty solid good working relationship that should extend and continue. It’s working very well in the Bering Sea and the North Pacific and should continue and work its way up to the Arctic Ocean as well, and we should look for opportunities to strengthen that relationship as well.

And what’s your assessment of these opportunities? And do you think that if Russia and the US start cooperating in the Arctic, the others will follow?

I think the opportunities are there. And I think that we have the chance to make things happen over the next few years. And yes, I believe that if we start cooperating on science and enforcement, other kinds of opportunities will present themselves, so the relationship will strengthen.

If we don’t seize those opportunities, then we’ll face a situation where one side does one thing, the other side does another thing, and because one does not talk to the other, we won’t know if we’re helping or hurting.

Interviewed by Daria Khaspekova, program coordinator