Main human uses of ocean areas and resources, impacts, and multiple scales of governance - Ocean Sustainability in the 21st Century - page 67

2.4.4 Geographic gaps in the regional legal regime

It is evident from Table 2.2 , and from the analysis by Gjerde et al . ( 2008 ), that there are
largegeographical gapsinthecoverageofregionalfisheriesmanagement conventions.Even
when regional seas conventions are considered in addition to the fisheries agreements, large
swathes of the global commons are left uncovered. One of the largest regulatory gaps is the
Arctic area. The Arctic has no regional legally binding instrument for fisheries management
or biodiversity conservation, except for the OSPAR Convention in the North-East Atlantic.
OSPAR, however, only covers a portion of the Arctic. The Arctic Council was established
as a high-level intergovernmental forum to provide a means for promoting cooperation, co-
ordination, and interaction among the Arctic states, with the involvement of the Arctic in-
digenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, in particu-
lar issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic. While the
Arctic Council has adopted a number of political measures to address various issues affect-
ing the Arctic, has been successful in achieving cooperation, and has undertaken substantive
work on topics such as Arctic biodiversity and climate change impacts, it has no regulatory
competence.
Other geographic gaps exist in:

· The Atlantic Ocean, where the only regional environmental instruments are in the

North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) and in the Caribbean (Cartagena Conven-
tion). The latter only covers small areas beyond national jurisdiction. Similarly, leg-
ally binding fisheries management instruments (except for tuna and tuna-like spe-
cies) are missing in the East Central, West Central and South-West Atlantic;

· The Indian Ocean, where no legally binding instrument exists for biodiversity con-

servation. In addition, there is no legally binding instrument for fisheries manage-
ment in the Northern Indian Ocean, except for tuna and tuna-like species;

· The Pacific Ocean, where there is no legally binding instrument for biodiversity

conservation beyond national jurisdiction, except for small high seas enclaves