However, in spite of the recent developments that have shown a convergence in the rhetoric of responsible shing and conservation, prevailing legal practices
and policy constructs engender con icts between those granted commercial shing quotas, those granted local shing access and those concerned with conservation in the same spaces (Salomon et al., 2011; Garcia, 2011: 294). Ensuring that poor populations, who are dependent on the abundance and diversity of natural resources and ecosystems fully bene t from these ecosystem services means confronting fundamental questions of fairness between the developing and developed world. Such issues of fairness were evoked in the response by developing country actors to a survey on the relationship between biodiversity and poverty alleviation (Roe et al., 2013: 167). These stakeholders “were less likely to perceive a positive relationship between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation”. Furthermore, Hanich’s (2015: 302) research discusses equity in international laws, such as those related to sheries pointing out that the “negotiation over the scope and application of sheries conservation and management measures is often a negotiation over how the burden of conservation is distributed”.