International governance of regional fisheries management organization: A comprehensive review

Introduction

Marine living resources are important sources of natural capital that contribute to food security and social welfare around the world. Approximately 8% of the global population (520 million individuals) are directly or indirectly supported by marine fisheries, with these industries providing an annual value of US \$220-235 billion (Sumaila et al., 2011; Pentz et al., 2018) [4,9] . RFMOs are a subset of regional fishery bodies that possess a management mandate to adopt binding measures for members, providing a formal mechanism for states to coordinate governance of common-property marine living resources across their distributions (including within and beyond national jurisdiction. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), high seas refer to all parts of the ocean that are not within the jurisdiction of any country, they lie beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and territorial waters. All countries have the freedom of navigation, overflight, scientific research and fishing (Alencar, 2020) [15] . When two or more states have nationals exploiting the same living resources (e.g., Tuna) or different resources in the same area (e.g., one fishing for shrimp, another for cod) overlapping resources, in these cases, countries are required to enter into negotiations to define and implement effective conservation measures for the resources in question (Durrenberger & Pálsson, 1987) [18] .While there is freedom of fishing on the high seas, countries are obligated to conserve and sustainably manage fish stocks in accordance with RFMOs, as stipulated in UNCLOS Articles 117 and 118 (Chang & Sun, 2025) [16] . This entails joint efforts to guarantee the sustainable use of these resources, preventing overfishing and adoption of harmful fishing practices (Borg,2012) [17] . Regional cooperation is encouraged through the establishment of sub-regional or regional fisheries organizations specifically RFMOs dedicated to managing these shared resources and responsibilities to protect and manage the living resources of the high seas i.e. the Area Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), which belong to no single nation (Bell et al., 2019) [12] . RFMO are established www.extensionjournal.com through international agreements between countries that share a common interest in managing and conserving fishery resources in a particular region. They have the authority to establish diverse regulations for fisheries management (Rayfuse, 2015) [20] .

UNFSA and RFMOs

The role of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) has evolved significantly over the past halfcentury, shifting from primarily research and advisory functions toward greater emphasis on decisionmaking and enforcement. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) provides the foundational legal framework for high-seas fisheries governance by establishing the 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and affirming state obligations for environmental protection and cooperation in the management of shared fish stocks. Building upon this framework, the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA, 1995) further strengthened and clarified provisions for the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, addressing gaps related to international cooperation (Nisa, 2014) [21] . The agreement also reinforced the role of Regional Fisheries Bodies (RFBs), particularly RFMOs, as key mechanisms for implementing conservation and management measures. By operating under the provisions of the Fish Stocks Agreement, RFMOs were designated as the expected management authorities responsible for establishing these measures on the high seas and ensuring their enforcement through member countries (Udeariry,2011) [26] . The UNFSA framework marked a significant step towards enhancing the regulatory and operational capacities of RFMOs in the realm of high seas fisheries management. Under the UNFSA framework, states are required to cooperate through RFMOs or apply their measures (Article 8), with obligations extending even to non-members (Article 17).Consequently, many RFMOs have been established under the UNFSA framework to ensure the conservation and sustainable management of fisheries resources across high seas, inland waters, and territorial waters (Swan, 2004) [14] . Subsequent international instruments, including the FAO Compliance Agreement and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, along with their associated International Plans of Action (IPOAs), further strengthened the global fisheries governance framework (Lugten, 2010; Kuruc, 2010) [22,23] . The Food and Agriculture Organization further facilitates international cooperation by providing a platform for governments, non-governmental organizations, industry stakeholders, and scientists to address implementation challenges and share best practices (Citaristi, 2022; Nandan & Lodge, 2005) [24,25] . This Convention has visualized the activities and expanding responsibilities of RFMOs. Simultaneously, it paved the way for the establishment of new organizations equipped with more modern mandates, reflecting the evolving needs of the international fisheries landscape (Cullis-Suzuki, 2009) [20] . FAO organizes a platform known as the Regional Fisheries Body Secretariats Network (RSN), currently encompassing 49 international bodies (Ogawa & Reyes, 2021) [27] . RSN was established to facilitate exchange of information among RFB secretariats. However, according to Asmundsson (2013), the landscape of RFMO is remarkably heterogeneous.

General RFMOs

Currently, there are 12 general RFMOs, (refer to Table 1 and Figure 3). General RFMOs possess authority over all fishery resources unless explicitly excluded from their mandate (Molenaar, 2020) [28] . These organizations oversee diverse fishing activities, including bottom, pelagic and benthos-pelagic fishing, utilizing various fishing gear to target a wide range of stocks and species. Some of these functions on both the high seas and areas under territorial waters, while others constitute discrete high seas (ABNJ) stocks. Since the adoption of the UNFSA agreement, there has been a notable increase in the establishment of General RFMOs.

Although some RFMOs have as few as 2 member countries (Argentina-Uruguay Maritime Front Commission) shown in table 1, while, some others have over 25 members (CCAMLR and GFCM), their mandates and functions are relatively uniform. Joining RFMOs comes with a crucial pledge, it includes share vital fishery data, respect established rules, and contribute funds for scientific assessments. The work of RFMOs with fewer members is no less important than those with more, as they manage either shared resources within a country's borders or fisheries across regions. RFMOs with larger memberships tackle even more complex oceans and ecosystems.This responsibility attracts global fishing giants like the US, Japan, and the EU, who are members of multiple general RFMOs. EU, for example, is a member of eight RFMOs (European Commission, 2023) [33] The roles of RFMOs are evolving beyond management. It holds jurisdiction over a diverse marine ecosystem, covering "all fish, molluscs, crustaceans, and other marine species caught by fishing vessels within the Convention Area.

Tuna RFMOs

Recognizing the unique nature of tuna fisheries across the globe, specific RFMOs have been established to manage these highly migratory species. Unlike General RFMOs with their comprehensive scope, Tuna RFMOs have a narrower focus, targeting "Tunas and Tuna-like species", "highly migratory fish stocks", or similar phrases enshrined in their governing agreements (FAO, 2020) [35] . There are five RFMOs, (refer to table 2 and figure 4). The first one is the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), established at 1949 through a bilateral convention between the United States and Costa Rica, and currently has 21 member countries. Followed by, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), which boasts a maximum of 52 member countries. The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), formed in 1993, has 31 member countries and focuses on the conservation and management of migratory tuna species in and out of the Indian Ocean. The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), established in 1994 with six member countries, operates without geographical limits of competence under the Convention for the Conservation of Endangered Southern Bluefin Tuna (Hsu, 2018) [1] . Lastly, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) formed in 2004. This organization has adopted various binding measures for the conservation of not only tuna species but also other non-targeted species such as sharks (since 2006), seabirds (since 2007), sea turtles (since 2008), and cetaceans (since 2011) (WCPFC, 2026) [1] . These shows the growing roles from major tuna to other conservatory species.

Institutional Structure of RFMOs

The typical structure of RFMOs comprises a "Governing Body" or "Commission Body," composed of member states. This body is responsible for making decisions regarding the management of fish stock within its jurisdiction (FAO, 2018; Lodge et al., 2007). Additionally, there is a scientific advisory committee tasked with supplying scientific evidence on various issues and a technical advisory committee proposing technical measures under subsidiary bodies to provide suggestions on the commission body through a secretariat which facilitate the decision-making process (Hilborn et al., 2020) [38] . Furthermore, the structure includes various subsidiary bodies, such as technical working groups. These groups focus on specific fish stocks, www.extensionjournal.com management tools, or research areas. Their function may be permanent or temporary determined by the research purpose at hand. These subsidiary bodies play a crucial role in enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the RFMO's overall functioning (Lodge et al., 2007) [39] . Sometimes the situation arises when a specific fish population migrates across regions governed by different RFMOs or when the geographic scopes of two RFMOs intersect. The resulting uncertainties have the potential to weaken the efficacy of management measures. Initiatives are in progress to enhance coordination between RFMOs in addressing these challenges. Over time, certain RFMOs have worked to develop strategies aimed at enhancing innovations to their decisions. One inventive method is the implementation of catch documentation systems. These systems enable managers to trace the origin of each fish back to the capturing vessel, ensuring that the catch was obtained legally, although their widespread adoption is not yet prevalent. Additionally, compliance is pursued through the monitoring of vessels within specific regions. Despite each RFMO maintaining a roster of authorized vessels, there is a lack of consistency in registration procedures and vessel information contributing to Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing at high sea. Compounding the issue, numerous vessels are registered with multiple RFMOs, irrespective of their current fishing location. A standardized list of registered and legal vessels is necessary for clarity.

Functions of RFMOs

According to Asmundsson (2016) RFMO is a sub-set of Regional Fisheries Bodies (RFBs). Under this context RFMO is defined as an inter-governmental organization meeting two criteria. Firstly, it must have the authority under international law to implement legally binding conservation and management measures related to fisheries. Secondly, the legal authority that extends to an area of competence should encompass a portion of the high seas. However, according to Asmundsson (2013), the landscape of RFMO is remarkably heterogeneous, some concentrating on inland fisheries, others on coastal fisheries, and still others focusing on the high seas. Additionally, certain RFMO prioritize the development of domestic fisheries sectors, while others emphasize fostering cooperation between countries on fisheries issues. RFMO functions are best understood in table 4 as an integrated cycle: science → decision-making → implementation → monitoring/compliance →adaptation.

Table 4: This table summarizes the main functions performed by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and the management instruments they typically use. It is useful as a compact reference linking RFMO mandates to practical governance tools and source-backed evidence.

RFMO role/function Typical instruments and tools

Key evidence sources

Science and scientific advice RFMO Central to their function is science and scientific advice, which includes Stock assessments; fish catch target and limit reference points; ecosystem and risk assessments; data standards and verification protocols with scientific committees for maximum sustainable resource yield.

Hsu 2018; Li 2025; Pentz et al. 2018 [1,2,4] Conservation and management measures minimize bycatch and ecosystem-based management RFMO implement a range of regulatory instruments including Total Allowable Catch (TACs) and quotas for highly migratory species, harvest limits, gear restrictions, mesh-size rules, closed seasons, closed areas, effort controls, and rebuilding measures to ensure compatibility between EEZs and the high seas. They also minimize bycatch through conservation and management measures (CMMs) and safe-handling rules, using observer data to monitor non-target species and conduct ecological risk assessments. It protect vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) through area closures and marine protected areas (MPAs). This function promote precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches for sustainable fisheries management. These measures are complemented by compatibility goals (aligning high-seas rules with EEZ management for the same stocks) and by expanding attention to non-target species to prevent broader ecosystem harm. [1,2,3,4,7] Allocation of fishing RFMO Distribute fishing rights among members through quota allocation and regulate access to fisheries for members and non-member. It facilitate participatory decision-making. This function ensure equitable Hsu 2018 [1] www.extensionjournal.com opportunities resource distribution results in balancing interests of member states. It promote compliance with agreed allocations.

Monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) RFMO monitors fishing activities through Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and satellite tracking. They implement boarding and inspection schemes, including at-sea inspections, to ensure compliance with regulations. It facilitate remote electronic monitoring (REM) to collect real-time data on fishing operations.

This function strengthen surveillance mechanisms and improve transparency in fisheries management.

Hsu 2018; Li 2025; Ewell et al. 2020 [1,2,6] Law enforcement and Compliance to ensure Transparency and data sharing RFMO ensure conservation measures through compliance committees and annual compliance reviews while supporting flag-state implementation and monitoring the application of agreed regulations. They follow up on sanctions and track enforcement actions taken by member states, while promoting transparency through public compliance reporting and periodic performance reviews. It also ensure timely reporting of catch and effort data, facilitate exchange of observer and compliance information, and disseminate fishing operation data through public summaries and research-grade datasets where available.

This function strengthen accountability and transparency among members.

Dispute resolution and decision processes

RFMO facilitate decision-making through consensus, majority, or supermajority voting procedures. They provide mechanisms for objection or opt-out by member states and review conservation measures periodically. It conduct annual commission meetings supported by subsidiary committees for effective governance. This function ensure coordination, transparency, and resolution of disputes among members.

Hsu 2018 [1] Capacity building and cooperation RFMO promote capacity building through technical assistance and scientific collaboration among member states. They support developing members and facilitate accession and cooperation by non-members. It encourage harmonization of policies and measures across RFMOs. This function strengthen cooperation and enhance overall fisheries governance.

Li 2025; Hsu 2018 [2,1] Guided by UNFSA principles, they utilize the best available scientific information, precautionary approaches, and reference points to evaluate stock status and formulate measures. They allocate fishing opportunities among member states through TAC distribution and access limitations, a process often shaped by political negotiations and consensus-based decision-making (Hsu, 2018) [1] . To ensure compliance, RFMOs establish MCS systems, including VMS, observer programmes, and inspection schemes, although enforcement remains largely dependent on flag states Hsu 2018; Li 2025. Observer programmes provide critical data on bycatch and onboard practices, while emerging Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) [1,2] systems offer cost-effective complementary tools despite governance challenges (Ewell et al. 2020) [6] . RFMOs also conduct compliance reviews and implement enforcement measures such as vessel authorization, IUU vessel lists, port state measures, and, in some cases, trade restrictions, although effectiveness depends significantly on member state cooperation and implementation. [1,4]

Why

Institutional necessity: governance beyond national jurisdiction

On the high seas, RFMOs are "responsible for ensuring the conservation and optimal use of marine living resources," and high-seas fisheries contribute substantial economic value. (Pentz et at., 2018) [4] .

Enforcement necessity: scaling compliance tools to a hard-to-police domain

High-seas enforcement is structurally difficult therefore, RFMOs' capacity to coordinate MCS, compliance reviews, port-state measures, and IUU information sharing is central to deterring illegal practices and to closing gaps created by limited at-sea jurisdiction. (Pentz et at., 2018; Li 2025) [2,4] .

Performance constraints: why effectiveness varies

RFMO performance is highly variable and is shaped more through political and less by the existence of policy frameworks which is the major constrain (Pentz et at.,2018; Hsu 2018) [1,4] . It has been observed that RFMOs still have major weaknesses in managing bycatch and ecosystem impacts, with only limited progress made toward ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM). Earlier, RFMOs mainly focused on managing target fish stocks, but now there is a growing shift toward managing the entire ecosystem. However, more than two-thirds of RFMO managed fisheries do not have proper observer coverage, and research-level observer data which are openly available. In addition, only about one-third of bycatch issues are addressed through binding measures, and nearly 80% of these measures lack clear performance standards, making it difficult to evaluate their effectiveness and ensure accountability (Pentz et at.,2018; Hsu 2018) [4,1] .

Major constraints that alter RFMOs effectiveness are listed below

• Limited delegation of power and political will which results in delays decision making and implementation.

• Weak agreement among flag states on combined

Decision-making rules and objection procedures undermine reduces the effectiveness of binding measures.

• Weak enforcement at national and regional levels and dependence on flag-state control reduce management effectiveness.

• Lack of Transparency and monitoring constrain the compliance assessment and enforcement outcomes.

Emerging challenges and future directions

RFMO with emerging climate change and political dispute, faces compliance issues related to policy implementation.

Climate change and distribution shifts

Climate change poses challenges to RFMOs by altering ocean conditions, including ocean acidification, sea-level rise, temperature rise, fish stock distribution shift, upwelling of nutrients. These changing conditions shifts productivity and distributions of stocks, complicating static member flag state aquatic resource catch quota allocation arrangements (FAO, 2020; IPCC, 2019; Elegbede et al., 2026) [41] . To address these challenges it is recommended to add climateoriented performance monitoring and evaluation systems, expand MPAs, and political analysis that strengthen decision processes. These measures will lead to a future ready decision making policy framework (Gaines et al., 2018) [42] .

Biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) interactions

The emerging BBNJ framework that are potentially supporting high-seas conservation in parallel with RFMOs, though practical interaction depends on how well they work together. These emerging frameworks should have clear roles and mandates that should not overlap with the functioning of RFMO. Coordinated and collaborative approaches will result in increasing effective implementation of policy and management (Wright et al., 2018; Lodge et al., 2007) [39,43] . Recommended Best Practices for Regional Fisheries Management Organizations: Report of an independent panel to develop a model for improved governance by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. Chatham House.) [39] . Across studies, commonly suggested reforms to improve RFMO effectiveness include improving monitoring and compliance systems (such as REM and observer programmes), increasing transparency in compliance and enforcement reporting, updating older RFMO mandates to follow precautionary climate adaptive ecosystembased approaches, and using independent performance reviews to which can improve accountability (FAO, 2018; OECD, 2017).

Conclusion

RFMOs are fundamental to the institutional framework by FAO that manage transboundary and high-seas fisheries. They provide a central platform through which flag states operationalize their legal duties to cooperate, translate scientific evidence into binding measures, allocate fishing opportunities, and coordinate monitoring and compliance in a domain where enforcement is difficult. Study indicates that their core tools which includes CMMs, allocation decisions, and MCS systems are well established, but their effectiveness is often altered by flag state through complex decision-making procedures, transparency deficits, and insufficient monitoring coverage. Our review assessment identifies significant gaps, particularly in ecosystem/bycatch governance and in the availability and quality and availability of observer data. These challenges may become more intensified under climate change impacts. Therefore, it is suggested for RFMOs for transition toward more adaptive, transparent, and performance-evaluable governance supported with strong monitoring and ecosystem protections that will ideally complement broader high-seas biodiversity governance frameworks.

References

1. Hsu J. Effective Governance and Policy Implementation in Governing High Seas Fisheries: A Comparative Study of Three Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. Doctoral dissertation, Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington. 2018.
2. Li S. Combating IUU fishing: an examination of interaction between China and regional fisheries management organizations. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2025;12:1601534.
3. Gilman E, Passfield K, Nakamura K. Performance of regional fisheries management organizations: ecosystem-based governance of bycatch and discards. Fish and Fisheries. 2014;15(2):327-351.
4. Pentz B, Klenk N, Ogle S, Fisher JA. Can regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) manage resources effectively during climate change? Marine Policy. 2018;92:13-20.
5. Haas B, McGee J, Fleming A, Haward M. Factors influencing the performance of regional fisheries management organizations. Marine Policy. 2020;113:103787.
6. Ewell C, Hocevar J, Mitchell E, Snowden S, Jacquet J. An evaluation of Regional Fisheries Management Organization at-sea compliance monitoring and observer programs. Marine Policy. 2020;115:103842.
7. Elliott B, Tarzia M, Read AJ. Cetacean bycatch management in regional fisheries management organizations: current progress, gaps, and looking ahead. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2023;9:1006894.
8. Elliot B. A Review of Regional Fisheries Management Organization Efforts in Addressing Cetacean Bycatch: Report to the International Whaling Commission. 2020.
9. Sumaila UR, Cheung WWL, Lam VWY, Pauly D, Herrick S. Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries. Nat Clim Change. 2011;1(9):449-456.
10. Convention of London for the regulation of the meshes of fishing nets and the size limits of fish. London; 1946. Entered into force 1953.
11. Ásmundsson S. Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs): Who are they, what is their geographic coverage on the high seas and which ones should be considered as General RFMOs, Tuna RFMOs and Specialised RFMOs. Tuna RFMOs and Specialised RFMOs. 2016.
12. Bell JB, Guijarro-Garcia E, Kenny A. Demersal fishing in areas beyond national jurisdiction: a comparative analysis of regional fisheries management organisations. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2019;6:596.
13. Løbach T, Petersson M, Haberkon E, Mannini P. Regional fisheries management organizations and advisory bodies: Activities and developments, 2000www.extensionjournal.com 2017. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. 2020;(651):I-112.
14. Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura V. Jurisdictional intersections between the continental shelf and other maritime spaces: exclusive economic zone, high seas and the area. In: Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: The Brazilian Blue Amazon. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2020:109-139.
15. Chang YC, Sun K. Can We Freely Fish on the High Seas? A China's Response. Coastal Management. 2025;53(4-5):353-371.
16. Borg S. Conservation on the high seas: harmonizing international regimes for the sustainable use of living resources. In: Conservation on the High Seas. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2012.
17. Durrenberger EP, Pálsson G. Ownership at sea: fishing territories and access to sea resources. American ethnologist. 1987;14(3):508-522.
18. Rayfuse R. 9 Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and their Efforts and Measures to Regulate Fishing Activities. In: Legal Regimes for Environmental Protection. Brill Nijhoff. 2015:152-176.
19. Cullis-Suzuki S. High seas, high risk: A global evaluation of the effectiveness of regional fisheries management organizations. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. 2009.
20. Nisa Z. Sharing the responsibility of the implementation of new international voluntary guidelines for small-scale fisheries via regional and National Networks. University of Rhode Island. 2014.
21. Lugten G. The role of international fishery organizations and other bodies in the conservation and management of living aquatic resources. 2010.
22. Kuruc M. Monitoring, control and surveillance tools to detect IUU Fishing and related activities. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2010.
23. Nandan S, Lodge M. Some suggestions towards better implementation of the United Nations Agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks of 1995. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2005;20(3):345-379.
24. Citaristi I. Specialized agencies and related organizations within the un system: Food and agriculture organization of the united nations-fao. In: The Europa Directory of International Organizations 2022. Routledge. 2022:307-315.
25. Udeariry N. The role of regional fisheries management organizations in the conservation and management of straddling fish stock and highly migratory fish stock. SSRN 2052485. 2011.
26. Ogawa M, Reyes JAL. Assessment of regional fisheries management organizations efforts toward the precautionary approach and science-based stock management and compliance measures. Sustainability. 2021;13(15):8128.
27. Molenaar EJ. Regional fisheries management organizations. In: Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2020:81109.
28. Bekiashev KA, Serebriakov VV. General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM). In: International Marine Organizations: Essays on Structure and Activities. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 1981:233-251.
29. Ferri N. The legal regime governing mediterranean fisheries: the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean of the FAO and the added-value of Article XIV Bodies. The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online. 2022;31(1):189-200.
30. FAO. Regional Fishery Bodies summary descriptions. Joint Technical Commission of the Maritime Front. Fishery Governance Fact Sheets. In: Fisheries and Aquaculture. 2026.
31. NEAFC. Scheme of control and enforcement. North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. 2022.
32. European Commission. International ocean governance: The EU and regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs). 2023.
33. NEAFC (North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission). Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries. London: NEAFC. 1980.
34. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Rome: FAO. 2020.
35. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2026.
36. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Report on the performance of regional fisheries management organizations. Rome: FAO. 2018.
37. Hilborn R, Amoroso RO, Anderson CM, Baum JK, Branch TA, Costello C, Ye Y. Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020;117(4):2218-2224.
38. Lodge MW, Anderson D, Løbach T, Munro G, Sainsbury K, Willock A. Recommended Best Practices for Regional Fisheries Management Organizations: Report of an independent panel to develop a model for improved governance by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. Chatham House. 2007.
39. Fischer J. How transparent are RFMOs? Achievements and challenges. Marine Policy. 2022;136:104106.
40. Elegbede IO, Animashaun M, Precious AN, Agbebaku H, Al-Mansur S, Titiloye T. Ocean Dynamics and Sea Level Rise: Implications for Food Security, One Health, and Climate. Dynamics of the Oceans-Variability, Hydrological Cycles, and Sea Level Change. 2026;53.
41. Gaines SD, Costello C, Owashi B, Mangin T, Bone J, Molinos JG, et al. Improved fisheries management could offset many negative effects of climate change. Science advances. 2018;4(8):eaao1378.
42. Wright G, Rochette J, Gjerde K, Seeger I. The long and winding road: negotiating a treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Paris: IDDRI. 2018.
43. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Combatting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Paris: OECD Publishing. 2017.