APPENDIX 1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

ALLEN, ROBIN
Director
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
(IATTC)
8604 La Jolla Shores Drive
La Jolla, CA 92037-1508, USA
Tel: +1 858 546 7033
Fax: +1 858 546 7133
E-mail: [email protected]
(IATTC nominee)

ALLISON, CHERRY
Computing Manager,
International Whaling Commission,
The Red House,
135 Station Road, Impington,
Cambridge, CB4 9NP, UK
Tel: + 44 (0) 1223 233971
Fax: +44 (0) 1223 232876
E-mail: [email protected]
(IWC nominee)

CROSS, DAVID
Head of Sector "Fisheries"
Directorate for Agriculture, Fisheries,
Structural Funds and Environment Statistics,
Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat)
Bâtiment Jean Monnet, BP 1907
Luxembourg, Grand Duchy
Tel: +352 4301 37249
Fax: +352 4301 30049
E-mail: [email protected]
(EU/Eurostat nominee)

DE GRAAF, GERTJAN
FishCode - STF Project
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39065705
Fax: +3906 57052476
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

FISCHER, JOHANNE
Executive Secretary
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
(NAFO)
P.O. Box 638, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Canada B2Y 3Y9
Tel: +1 902 468 6582
Fax: +1 902 468 5538
E-mail: [email protected]
(NAFO nominee)

GRAINGER, RICHARD
CWP Secretary
Chief
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +390657054828
Fax: +3906 57052476
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

HENRARD, MICHEL
Senior Administrator
Directorate for Agriculture, Fisheries,
Structural Funds and Environment Statistics,
Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat)
Bâtiment Jean Monnet, BP 1907
Luxembourg, Grand Duchy
Tel: +352 4301 33744
Fax: +352 4301 30049
E-mail: [email protected]
(EU/Eurostat nominee)

KEBE, PAPA
Head of Department of Statistics
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
Corazón de María 8,
Madrid 28002, Spain
Tel: +34 91 4165600
Fax: +34 91 4152612
E-mail: [email protected]
(ICCAT nominee)

LASSEN, HANS
Head of Advisory Programme
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44-46
Copenhagen V
Denmark
Tel: +45 3338 6700
Fax: +45 33934215
E-mail: [email protected]
(ICES nominee)

LOWTHER, ALAN
Fishery Statistician (Aquaculture)
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39065705
Fax: +3906 57052476
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

RAMM, DAVID
Data Manager
Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR)
PO Box 213, North Hobart 7002
Australia
Tel: +61 3 62310556
Fax: +61 3 62349965
E-mail: [email protected]
(CCAMLR nominee)

SMITH, ANDREW
FAO Consultant
5 Seatown Pl.
Cairnbulg
Fraserburgh AB43 8WP
UK
Tel: + 44 1346 582980
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

SCHMIDT, CARL-CHRISTIAN
Head of Fisheries Division
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
2, rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
France
Tel: + 33 1 45 249560
Fax: + 33 1 45 306121
E-mail:
[email protected]
(OECD nominee)

TACONET, MARC
Fishery Information Officer
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39 06 5705 3799
Fax: +39 06 57052476
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

VANNUCCINI, STEFANIA
Fishery Statistician (Commodities)
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO
00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +390657054949
Fax: +3906 57052476
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

VAZQUEZ, ANTONIO
Vice Chairman of the Scientific Council of
NAFO and Chair of STACREC
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas, CSIC
Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo
Spain
Tel: + 34 986 231930 Ex.242
Fax: + 34 986 292763
E-mail: [email protected]
(NAFO nominee)

WESTLUND, LENA
FAO Consultant
Badhusvägen 13
132 37 Saltsjö-Boo
Sweden
Tel/Fax: + 46 (0) 8 570 287 50
Mobile: +46 (0) 708 54 88 13
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

WONGSANGA, POUCHAMARN
Information Program Coordinator
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Center (SEAFDEC)
Suraswadi Building, Department of
Fisheries Compound
Kasetsart University
Main Campus Chatuchak
Bangkok, Thailand
Tel: +662 940 6326 to 29
Fax: +662 940 6336
E-mail: [email protected]
(SEAFDEC nominee)

APPENDIX 2

AGENDA

1. Opening and welcome, practical arrangements
2. Adoption of Agenda
3. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
4. Review of membership
5. Progress since CWP-20

a. Progress report from each member organization
b. Review of the development of FIGIS and FIRMS [for information]
c. CWP’s advocacy role
d. Review of progress with recommendations from CWP-20
e. FISHSTAT

6. Vessel size measurement for statistical purposes (Vessel length, Loa, Lp-p,)
7. Aquaculture statistics
8. Fishery Data Quality Indicators
9. Recommendations relating to CWP from the FAO Expert Consultation on Data Formats and Procedures for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (Bergen, Norway, 25 - 27 October 2004).
10. Report of the Workshop 28 February - 1 March on: Implementation of the Strategy - STF
11. Arrangements for CWP-22 (Time and Venue)
12. Any other business
13. Adoption of Report of CWP-21
14. Closing of the meeting

APPENDIX 3

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Documents from the Secretariat addressing agenda items 3-5

Documents from Participating Organizations addressing agenda items 6-18

CWP-21 Information Documents

APPENDIX 4

NEW DIVISIONS OF AREA 27

Figure A. Overview of the revised divisions and subdivisions. The changes concern the introduction of the NEAFC convention areas I, II and III as separate divisions and a split of the Baltic Sea Subdivision 28 in an open part and in the Gulf of Riga. Details of the boundaries around the Azores are disputed and may be revised.

Figure B. Subdivisions in the Baltic Sea. Note that the former Division IIId is now defunct.

Figure C. Details of divisions and subdivisions of the eastern parts of the Northeast Atlantic.

APPENDIX 5

CWP STATEMENT TO COFI 2005

Statement to Agenda item 4. Code of Conduct discussion.

Mr Chairman, distinguished Delegates, ladies and gentlemen.

I am Johanne Fischer, Executive Secretary of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. I speak to you as vice-chair of and on behalf of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics, CWP, that is composed of 15 intergovernmental organizations with FAO providing the Secretariat. At CWP’s Twenty-first session held last week in Copenhagen participants asked that two matters related to the implementation of the Code of Conduct be conveyed to COFI.

First, CWP considered the Role of Regional Fishery Bodies, in the implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries in cooperation with the FishCode - STF Project. The following recommendations resulted from this discussion:

1. The FishCode - STF Project and FAO should assist RFBs in increasing the awareness of the importance of the implementation of the STF Strategy.
2. The FishCode - STF Project and FAO, together with the RFBs, should stress the importance of and promote actions on transparent and complete national data collection of fisheries.
3. The FishCode - STF Project should cooperate with RFBs on the carrying out of inventories of data collection systems and status of stocks, in particular in supporting their contribution to FIRMS.
4. The FishCode - STF Project should seek collaboration with interested RFBs for the development of monitoring systems for small-scale fisheries in developing countries. All RFBs may assist with the identification of expertise for technical assistance.
5. The FishCode - STF Project should consider developing guidelines for the establishment of data exchange protocols based on the CWP handbook on fisheries statistical standards.

Secondly, the FAO Expert Consultation on MCS Data Formats and Procedures in 2004, also mentioned by Norway yesterday, made a number of recommendations to CWP. These were carefully considered and addressed, and we refer to the last CWP report for details. Here, we wish to point out that the Experts’ recommendation on data formats and procedures for MCS was partly outside the CWP mandate and therefore it was decided to invite the inter-agency IMCS Network to cooperate with CWP on this matter.

The FAO Expert Consultation also suggested that CWP enter into a dialogue with the developers of the North Atlantic Format for electronic fishing vessel communications. In response, CWP has set up a Working Group to draft a discussion paper.

Thank you for your attention.

APPENDIX 6

SUMMARY MINUTES
of
FIRMS STEERING COMMITTEE - SESSION 2
Copenhagen, 25 - 26 February 2005

The Second Session of the FIRMS Steering Committee (FSC2) took place on 25 and 26 February 2005 in the ICES building, Copenhagen. The FIRMS Secretariat, five Partner agencies (IATTC, ICES, ICCAT, SEAFDEC, and NAFO), and one observer agency (CCAMLR) were represented.

Two new Partners, NAFO and SEAFDEC, signed the agreement during the inter-session thus bringing the current FIRMS Partnership to eight members. CCAMLR and Eurostat are in the final stages of signing the FIRMS Partnership Arrangement.

It was noticed that these new Partners intend to provide more information on fisheries and their management than the initial set of FIRMS signatories.

On the subject of new possible Partners, it was decided that WCPFC, NEAFC, NASCO and IWC will be invited to become members of FIRMS. The nature of FIRMS, its progress status and its openness to any RFB requesting to become a FIRMS Partner will be items which will be presented during the next RFB meeting in Rome.

FIRMS Steering Committee - Session 2 (FSC2) has adopted the first version of its Information Management Policy. This policy provides for rules and principles governing the sharing of information within the FIRMS system. It is understood to be a living document which FSC will regularly revise. The item "Mechanisms for effective development and validation of Metadata standards" was added, and will probably be extended at the next FSC meeting. Among the mechanisms it is expected to delegate responsibility to interested FIRMS groups to propose standards for specific FIRMS subjects.

The FIRMS Partners and Secretariat progress reports have been considered. The inventory of Marine resources and Stocks of existing FIRMS Partners are nearly complete and are currently loaded in the FIGIS database. The inventory of fisheries is close to completion. Table 1 presents summary statistics of these inventories. Three training sessions were delivered during the inter-session, and others are planned in the forthcoming session. The requirements for the FIRMS web-based module were discussed and the software is currently under design with an objective to have an operational version by the end of 2005. This software will build on the new version of FIGIS released in February 2005, which has improved performance and is easier to maintain. Prototype tools were tested for streamlining information flow from Partners word source documents to FIRMS xml formats. A draft FIRMS home page is now available to Partners for review before publication. FSC2 validated some of the standards proposed by the Secretariat, such as stocks and fisheries naming conventions and primary attributes, or standards for bibliographic citations for FIRMS fact sheets.

The Steering Committee discussed a strategy for promoting the development of a global network for reporting on fisheries and stocks status and trends. The agreed road map includes the invitation to other RFBs to join, the development of a proofed product, the promotion of FIRMS as one implementing mechanism of the Strategy - STF, and once FIRMS is operational, an invitation to national agencies to contribute.

FSC 3 will be held in conjunction with the CWP’s 2006 intersessional meeting. During the intersession, the technical group will pursue the review of the successive mock-ups and draft web-pages proposed by the Secretariat, extend the inventory of fisheries where applicable, and will probably hold a training and feedback meeting in Rome at the end of 2005. The FSC members will review and try to validate high level definitions required for FIRMS.

Hans Lassen and Victor Restrepo were elected Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively for the coming intersession.

Table 1a: Progress status of the stocks of fisheries inventory of FIRMS partners

Table 1b: Progress status of the stocks of fisheries inventory of FIRMS observers

APPENDIX 7

REPORT OF THE RFB - STF WORKSHOP

The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries
(RFB - STF Workshop)

Copenhagen, Denmark, 28 February - 1 March 2005

Introduction

1. In 2003 the Twentieth Session of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) discussed the possible role of CWP and Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) in the implementation of the Strategy - STF. The CWP had participated in the Technical Consultation on Improving Information on the Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries in March 2002 and RFBs were involved in the development of the Strategy - STF. The meeting agreed that CWP should support the implementation of the Strategy - STF within the framework of its mandate. At the Intersessional Meeting of CWP Agencies in February 2004, it was agreed to organize the RFB-STF Workshop to discuss in more detail the roles of CWP and RFBs in the implementation of the Strategy - STF.

2 In order to assist the implementation of the Strategy - STF, a multilateral project was formulated under the FAO FishCode Programme, the FishCode - STF Project. The Project became operational in November 2004. A major objective of the project is to support the implementation of the Strategy - STF.

3. The FAO/CWP workshop on the role of Regional Fishery Bodies and the CWP in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries (Strategy - STF) was hosted by ICES on 28 February - 1 March 2005 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The objective of the workshop was to identify the roles that RFBs and CWP could play in the implementation of the Strategy - STF. It was expected that a general framework for the participation and cooperation of RFBs would be outlined and that specific areas for partnership activities undertaken by the RFBs would be identified.

4. The workshop was attended by ten participants from RFBs and FAO. The list of participants is included in Annex A and the Workshop working paper in Annex B to this Report.

5. The agenda of the workshop as adopted is given in Annex C and included a short presentation on the Strategy - STF and the FAO FishCode - STF Project by the Project Technical Manager followed by discussions on the activities of the participating RFBs on their work programmes and areas of common interest with the Strategy - STF. Other agenda items were the identification of possible partnership activities and requirements with regard to their implementation arrangements and a discussion on the needs for capacity building in RFBs

The Workshop

Discussions

6. In his presentation, the FishCode - STF Technical Manager summarized the current priority activities of the Project, i.e. inventories of data collection systems and of the status of fish stocks, the development of monitoring systems for small-scale fisheries, and capacity building focusing on developing countries and regions. It was explained, however, that although the FishCode - STF Project focuses on developing countries, the STF Strategy is global in scope.

7. The RFB representatives made brief statements advising the workshop of their activities relevant to the STF-Strategy and the work of the FishCode - STF Project. It was noted that all organizations were involved in various aspects of improving data and information but that reference was rarely formally made to the STF-Strategy.

8. The workshop discussed the importance of how data are collected and how the use of different sources often gives different sets of data. Most RFBs rely on official national data collected by their member states and other scientific sources. These national data are compiled and sometimes, based on assessments and the results from complementary surveys, corrected for scientific purposes by RFBs. This results in the existence of different data sets that are not always comparable or compatible. The need for transparency in data handling was noted but the workshop did not discuss further how to resolve the issue. However, it was suggested that FAO and the FishCode - STF Project could assist in increasing the awareness in RFB member states about the STF-Strategy and the importance of good quality data and information.

9. The importance of developing monitoring systems for small-scale fisheries and the current lack of reliable data on the activities of the sector was highlighted by the workshop. Among those RFBs present at the workshop, IATTC, ICCAT and SEAFDEC expressed interest in cooperation with the FishCode - STF Project on the implementation of this important issue of the Strategy - STF. It was also expected that other RFBs not present would be interested in the subject matter.

10. The workshop noted that there are different concerns and issues in data-rich and data-poor organizations. It was also recognized that different methodologies for data collection and handling need to be used in different situations and in different environments. Hence, with regard to the development of monitoring systems for small-scale fisheries, particularly in a developing country context, it was felt that it would not always be advisable to transfer technology directly from existing data collection systems. Nevertheless, also RFBs not directly concerned with these aspects of small-scale fisheries felt that expertise may be available within their science networks and offered to assist in identifying such expertise.

11. The meeting discussed the three proposals for partnership activities presented in the working paper prepared for the workshop (see Annex B). With regard to the first proposal - Inventory of existing fishery data collection systems, fishery resources and fisheries and incorporation of results into FIGIS - the workshop welcomed the cooperation. The meeting noted that all RFBs present already contribute to this work by their participation in FIRMS.

12. On the proposal Development of criteria, methods and processes for ensuring the quality and security of information on status and trends, it was agreed that the FishCode STF Project should look into the possibility of developing guidelines for the establishment of data exchange protocols based on the "CWP Handbook on fishery statistical standards". It was felt that CWP would welcome such an initiative and that the establishment of working groups of experts could be considered once a more specific proposal for the activity has been elaborated.

13. With regard to expanding the scope of information on status and trends of fisheries to include economic, social and environmental aspects and allow for the incorporation of CWP-21 considerations into fisheries management, it was found that many RFBs work towards implementing an eco-system approach without considering all aspects as defined in the FAO guidelines. Only certain CWP member agencies collect socio-economic data, e.g. Eurostat, GFCM, OECD and SEAFDEC. It was also noted that the focus of the FishCode - STF Project is on data-poor situations where an CWP-21 approach may be difficult to implement.

14. On the issue of how RFBs and FishCode - STF Project partnership activities should be organized, the workshop concluded that a flexible approach should be followed and that arrangements should be made on a case-by-case basis. While RFBs have to follow internal decision structures and protocols, no particular requirements were identified with regard to institutional arrangements. It was also noted that cooperation between the FishCode STF Project and RFBs could take place through the already existing institutional arrangement that the CWP provides.

15. The workshop agreed with the priorities established by the FishCode - STF Project that project activities should focus on areas where the needs are the most urgent, i.e. data-poor situations in developing countries.

Conclusions and recommendations

16. The following recommendations were given with regard to future partnership activities:

• The FishCode - STF Project and FAO should assist RFBs in increasing the awareness of the importance of the implementation of the STF Strategy.

• The FishCode - STF Project and FAO, together with the RFBs, should stress the importance of and promote actions on transparent and complete national data collection of fisheries.

• The FishCode - STF Project should cooperate with RFBs on the carrying out of inventories of data collection systems and status of stocks, in particular in supporting their contribution to FIRMS.

• FishCode - STF Project should seek collaboration with interested RFBs for the development of monitoring systems for small-scale fisheries in developing countries. All RFBs may assist with the identification of expertise for technical assistance.

• The FishCode - STF Project should consider developing guidelines for the establishment of data exchange protocols based on the CWP handbook on fisheries statistical standards.

17. The participants of the Workshop expressed gratitude and appreciation to ICES for hosting this Workshop.

Annex A

Workshop
on
The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries

ICES Secretariat, Copenhagen
28 February - 1 March 2005

List of Participants

ALLEN, ROBIN
Director
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
(IATTC)
8604 La Jolla Shores Drive
Tel: +1 858 546 7033
Fax: +1 858 546 7133
E-mail: [email protected]
(IATTC Nominee)

DE GRAAF, GERTJAN
FishCode - STF project
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39 0657054129
Fax: +39 06 57052476
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

FISCHER, JOHANNE
Executive Secretary
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
(NAFO)
2 Morris Drive, P.O. Box 638
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada B2Y3Y9
Tel: +1 902 468 6582
Fax: +1 902 468 5538
Email: [email protected]
(NAFO nominee)

GRAINGER, RICHARD
CWP Secretary
Chief
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +390657054828
Fax: +3906 57052476
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

KEBE, PAPA
System Analyst
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
Corazón de María 8,
Madrid 28002, Spain
Tel: +34 91 4165600
Fax: +34 91 4152612
E-mail: [email protected]
(ICCAT nominee)

LASSEN, HANS
Head of Advisory Programme
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44-46
Copenhagen V,Denmark
Tel: +45 3338 6700
Fax: +45 33934215
E-mail: [email protected]
(ICES nominee)

RAMM, DAVID
Data Manager
Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR), PO Box 213,
North Hobart 7002, Australia
Tel: +61 3 62310556
Fax: +61 3 62349965
E-mail: [email protected]
(CCAMLR nominee)

TACONET, MARC
Fisheries Information Officer
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics
Unit (FIDI), Fisheries Department
FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39 06 57053799
Fax: +39 06 57052476
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

VAZQUEZ, ANTONIO
Vice Chairman of the Scientific Council of
NAFO and Chair of STACREC
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas, CSIC
Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo
Spain
Tel: + 34 986 231930 Ex.242
Fax: +
E-mail: [email protected]
(NAFO nominee)

WESTLUND, LENA
Badhusvägen 13
132 37 Saltsjö-Boo
Sweden
Tel/Fax: + 46 (0) 8 570 287 50
Mobile: +46 (0) 708 54 88 13
E-mail: [email protected]
(FAO nominee)

WONGSANGA, POUCHAMARN
Policy and Program Coordinator
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Centre (SEAFDEC)
Suraswadi Building, Department of
Fisheries Compound, Kasetsart University
Main Campus Chatuchak, Bangkok, Thailand
Tel: + 662 9406326
Fax: + 662 9406336
E-mail: [email protected]
(SEAFDEC nominee)

Annex B

Workshop
on
The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies and the CWP in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries (Strategy - STF)

ICES Secretariat, Copenhagen
28 February - 1 March 2005

FishCode - STF Project Working Document 2005/1

INTRODUCTION

Background

Responsible fisheries management has become a main concern to policy and decision makers recognising the increasing threats to CWP-21 diversity and productivity and to the sustainable contribution of aquatic resources to the nutritional, economic and social well-being of the world’s growing population. To give guidance to policy-makers, the "Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries" (CCRF) was developed by FAO and adopted by its Member States in 1995. Together with its Technical Guidelines and related International Plans of Action (IPOAs), the CCRF has become a widely accepted global standard defining principles and methods for developing and managing fisheries and aquaculture in a sustainable manner. In order to facilitate the implementation of the CCRF, FAO Fisheries Department set up a special programme for global partnerships promoting responsible fisheries: FishCode. The programme serves as a means through which partnership initiatives supporting the CCRF can be implemented drawing on the know-how and experience of FAO.

Guiding principles, however, are not enough for achieving responsible fisheries management. Sound decisions have to be based on accurate and relevant information and knowledge of fisheries and fishery resources. Based on recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (ACFR), a proposal was developed to improve the way fishery status and trends information is assembled and disseminated. The proposal was discussed in an FAO Technical Consultation in 2002 and the "Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries" (Strategy - STF) was adopted by the Twenty-fifth Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2003.

The Strategy - STF is a voluntary instrument that applies to all States and entities. Its overall objective is to provide a framework for the improvement of knowledge and understanding of fishery status and trends as a basis for fisheries policy-making and sustainable management. The Strategy - STF will be implemented through agreements between States, directly or through Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) and arrangements, and FAO.

COFI at its Twenty-fifth Session recognized the need for extra-budgetary support for implementation of the Strategy - STF and accordingly endorsed a proposal to develop a multilateral project under the FAO FishCode Programme as a means to accomplish this. Three Members have so far committed funds in support of the FishCode - STF Project and its first component - "Development of Inventories, Methodologies and Operational Guidelines" - became operational in November 2004.

The Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) and RFBs participated in the Technical Consultation in 2002. RFBs also contributed to the development of the Strategy - STF. At the Twentieth CWP Session in 2003, it was agreed that CWP would be prepared to facilitate the implementation of the Strategy - STF within the areas of its mandate. This agreement was confirmed at the Intersessional Meeting of CWP Agencies in February 2004. It was also agreed that a workshop should be held in conjunction with the next CWP Session in the beginning of March 2005 to discuss the role of RFBs in the implementation of the Strategy. Accordingly, a Workshop on "The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries" (RFB-STF Workshop) is being held in Copenhagen on 28 February - 1 March 2005.

Context and outline of the present report

The present report has been prepared for the RFB-STF Workshop, hosted by ICES in Copenhagen on 28 February - 1 March 2005. The purpose of the report is to serve as a background and reference document, giving a general overview of the role of RFBs in the implementation of the Strategy - STF, and as a discussion document with regard to possible collaboration between the FishCode - STF Project and the RFBs.

After this introductory chapter, the context and contents of the Strategy - STF are presented in chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the RFBs and their role in fisheries management and conservation. Chapter 4 discusses possible roles for the RFBs in implementing the Strategy - STF and suggests issues for discussion in the RFB-STF Workshop. Concluding remarks are found in Chapter 5 and a bibliography in Chapter 6.

A list of RFBs is included as an appendix to the Report of the 21 Session of the CWP.

Expected outcome of the RFB-STF Workshop

The objective of the RFB-STF Workshop is to identify the roles that RFBs and CWP could play in the implementation of the Strategy - STF. It is expected that a general framework for the participation and cooperation of RFBs will be outlined and that specific areas for partnership activities undertaken by the RFBs will be identified.

The outcome of the Workshop will be presented to the Twenty-first CWP Session held immediately after the Workshop on 1 - 4 March 2005.

IMPROVING INFORMATION ON STATUS AND TRENDS

The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and FishCode

The CCRF is a voluntary instrument setting out principles and standards for responsible practices with regard to effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources within the context of a sustainable CWP-21 and biodiversity. It covers fishing operations, processing and trade of fish and fishery products as well as aquaculture, fisheries research and fisheries under coastal area management. The CCRF is global in scope and is directed to all those concerned with the aquatic environment in relation to fisheries and aquaculture.

Within the framework of the CCRF, four IPOAs have been agreed upon^[7]. The Strategy - STF is another voluntary instrument within the CCRF framework. Moreover, the "Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas" (Compliance Agreement), adopted by the twenty-seventh session of the FAO Conference, forms an integral part of the CCRF.

The implementation of the CCRF is a complex and demanding task that takes place at several levels: global, regional, subregional and national. The FAO Fisheries Department promotes implementation and acts as a catalyst. A number of Technical Guidelines have been developed by the Department to support the implementation. Already when adopting the CCRF, the FAO Conference recommended that provisions should be made for "providing advice to developing countries in implementing the CCRF and for the elaboration of an Interregional Assistance Programme for external assistance aimed at supporting implementation of the CCRF"^[8]. Accordingly, the FAO FishCode Programme was established as a special programme of global partnerships for responsible fisheries. The overall objective is to "to raise the economic, social and nutritional benefits obtained from the fisheries and aquaculture, especially in developing countries, through the adoption of responsible development, management and conservation practices, including improved institutional and legal arrangements."^[9]

The FishCode Programme is mainly funded through contributions from partner governments and organizations in combination with FAO Regular Programme resources. Its coordination unit is situated in FAO headquarters. FishCode components cover a wide range of activities related to the CCRF implementation, including the Strategy - STF Project.

The Strategy - STF

The need for good information on status and trends of fisheries is stated in the CCRF and in other international instruments concerning fisheries. Accurate and appropriate knowledge of fisheries and fishery resources, including socio-economic aspects, is a prerequisite for sound policy-making and responsible fisheries management and governance.

The Strategy - STF applies to the assembly and dissemination of information on fishery status and trends at the national, regional and global levels while data collection for research needs are established by other international fisheries instruments. Nevertheless, the Strategy - STF is expected to strengthen research indirectly through capacity building in developing countries.

The main focus of the Strategy - STF is fishery resources and the primary fisheries sector. It covers all capture fisheries in inland and marine waters and all types of fishing operations. However, it does not apply to aquaculture because of the different requirements of the sector.

The Strategy - STF was developed within the context of the CCRF and its main objective is "to provide a framework for the improvement of knowledge and understanding of fishery status and trends as a basis for fisheries policy making and management"^[10]. Within the Strategy - STF, high priority is given to capacity building and the provision of technical assistance to developing countries. Furthermore, the particular requirements of the small-scale fisheries sector are emphasized because of its importance to food security and poverty reduction. The Strategy - STF supports the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation agreed on at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) by contributing better information for monitoring the time-bound goals set for fisheries, i.e. regarding the implementation of the IPOAs on IUU fishing and capacity, restoration of depleted stocks, application of an CWP-21 approach, and the establishment of "representative networks" of marine protected areas^[11].

The Strategy - STF will be implemented by working cooperatively through agreements between States, RFBs and FAO. These arrangements will be established at different geographical levels and coordinated with the assistance of FAO. Whenever possible, use should be made of existing organizations for cooperation.

The Strategy - STF provides a list of required actions for the achievement of its objective. These actions cover different issues and considerations and can be summarized as follows:

• Developing countries needs for financial and technical assistance should be addressed and capacity building is necessary, both at national level and with regard to RFBs, to ensure their participation in the Strategy - STF.

• Small-scale and multispecies fisheries are often poorly monitored and appropriate methods should be developed for improving the information on these fisheries.

• The scope of the information collected should be expanded to include the effects of climatic, environment and socio-economic factors on fishery conservation and management in order to allow for the incorporation of CWP-21 considerations into fisheries management. Indicators of sustainable development should also be developed.

• The Strategy - STF will be instrumental in the preparation of a complete inventory of the world’s fisheries and fish stocks. Definitions, forms, methods and other tools have to be developed for carrying out such an inventory in the FAO Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS). A process for scientific oversight of the status and trends information should also be established.

• The FAO Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS) aims at providing policy-makers with reliable and timely information. It is based on collaboration with States contributing and accessing information. FIGIS will be an important support to the implementation of the Strategy - STF and States and RFBs are recommended to support its development.

• Criteria and methods should be developed to ensure the quality and security of status and trends information. These criteria and methods should comply with already agreed international standards and practices for data verification.

• Provision of data should be facilitated and exchange of information on status and trends should be promoted.

• Working groups of fisheries experts should be set up to assess the status and trends of fish stocks and fisheries and to promote quality and transparency of scientific information, including through the Fishery Resources Monitoring System (FIRMS).

• The sustainability of data collection, analysis and reporting should be ensured and States should monitor their systems accordingly.

The FishCode - STF Project

In order to assist the implementation of the Strategy - STF, a multilateral project was formulated under the FAO FishCode Programme, the FishCode - STF Project. The Project became operational in November 2004. The development objective of the Project is the same as for the FishCode Programme, i.e. increased economic, social and nutritional benefits obtained from fisheries, through the adoption of responsible fisheries management and resource conservation policies and practices.

The Project will support the implementation of the Strategy - STF globally but places special emphasis on capacity-building in developing countries and regions. The direct beneficiaries will be national fisheries statistical units, research institutes and fishery administrations who will have their capacities strengthened and enhanced in addition to having access to better information on status and trends. It is also expected that national and international actors at regional and global levels will benefit from improved information and, in some cases, capacity building.

The Project will implement the Strategy - STF through agreements between States, directly or through RFBs, and FAO. While the Project will work primarily with national administrations, it will also seek cooperation with other actors and bodies, e.g.:

• Other components under the FishCode Programme umbrella and other projects involved in the implementation of the CCRF

  The FishCode - STF Project training activities will, for example, be carried out in cooperation with the FishCode SIDS Project^[12] or with the Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme^[13] as appropriate.

• FIGIS-FIRMS

  The work of FIGIS-FIRMS includes stocks, resources and fisheries inventories and the development of standards^[14]. The inventories to be carried out by the FishCode - STF Project will be based on methodologies developed by FIGIS-FIRMS.

• RFBs and CWP

  The Project will seek partnerships with RFBs for facilitating the implementation of the Strategy - STF. RFBs could also support the implementation by giving support to their members, participating in relevant programmes, by adopting agreed standards and guidelines and by becoming partners of FIGIS. The CWP is concerned with international cooperation in the field of fishery statistics and interlinks the work of various RFBs.

• Other international fishery-related organizations, advisory bodies and programmes

  As and when appropriate, cooperation will be sought with other organizations and programmes concerned with fisheries governance, for example, the ACFR, Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) and UNEP Regional Seas Programme.

Six guiding principles have been defined for the implementation arrangements:

• Sustainability

  The arrangements for information assembly and dissemination should be viable in the long term.

• Best scientific advice

  The quality of scientific information should be assured to the extent possible and the arrangements should contribute to best scientific advice.

• Participation and cooperation

  The arrangements should allow all relevant participants to be included in the preparation, analysis and presentation of information.

• Objectivity and transparency

  The arrangements should contribute to transparency and information uncertainties should be disclosed.

• Timeliness

  Arrangements should result in the provision of information in a timely manner.

• Flexibility

  Arrangements should be flexible and permit adjustments when needed to support fishery policy-making and management.

The Project will address the "Required actions" described in the Strategy - STF document, i.e.:

• Capacity-building in developing countries.

• Setting up a global inventory of fish stocks and fisheries.

• Development of data collection systems for small-scale and multispecies fisheries.

• Development of criteria and methods for ensuring information quality and security.

• Development of arrangements for the provision and exchange of information.

• Support to and participation in the Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS).

• Sustaining data collection and information systems.

• Expanding the scope of information on status and trends of fisheries, including the need to incorporate CWP-21 considerations into fisheries management.

• Participation in working groups in assessing the status and trends of fisheries.

The FishCode - STF Project is designed to be implemented in two overlapping phases. The first component, "Development of inventories, methodologies and operational guidelines", focuses on the normative framework. The second component, "Field training and implementation", will use the first phase outputs, e.g. inventories and methodologies, and will include capacity building in developing countries.

The first component has a duration of four years and became operational in November 2004. In addition to the workshop for which this document has been prepared, the activities planned for the first two years include^[15]:

• Inventories of fisheries monitoring systems, fishery resources and fisheries: Questionnaire surveys and regional workshops

  The first inventory of data collection systems is carried out in the South East Asia region in cooperation with the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC). A regional workshop will be held in February 2005. Similar activities are planned for the Mediterranean and the Caribbean, also in 2005, and in West Africa and the Bay of Bengal region in 2006.

• Development of standards for ensuring information quality and security

• Initial studies and workshops for the development of new approaches with regard to monitoring of small-scale fisheries, inclusion of socio-economic information, monitoring of inland fisheries and implementation of the CWP-21 approach.

Activities foreseen for the second half of Component 1 include pilot studies and support to research initiatives for the testing of new approaches, development of indicators for sustainable development, establishment of protocols for the inputs to FIGIS and for exchange of information.

REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES (RFBs) AND THE STRATEGY - STF

Overview of RFBs and their role in conservation and fisheries management

Almost 40 Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs)^[16] and arrangements are at present in existence in different parts of the world. Their combined area of competence covers parts of all oceans and a large part of the world’s inland waters. Some are specific for a group of species or a fishery and others for a geographical area, or a combination thereof. FAO has assisted in the establishment of about a quarter of the total number of RFBs while others are the result of independent initiatives. A list of RFBs is included in Appendix I.

The RFBs vary in scope with regard to species, fisheries and geographic areas. They also vary considerably when it comes to mandate, functions, decision-making powers and procedures. However, a general shift in the roles of RFBs has been noted during the last few decades. In the early days, the mandates and functions of RFBs were based on the concept of abundant resources and free access to fishing grounds. RFBs served as fora for discussion and the main functions included cooperative research and database development and analysis. In the second half of the twentieth century, when more intensive management measures were prompted by the realization that some fish stocks were fished at or beyond their sustainable yields, RFBs became involved in the setting of catch quotas and joint inspection schemes. These functions were, however, limited by the mandates usually given to RFBs by their members; RFBs had advisory and research roles rather than decision-making and enforcement powers with regard to fisheries management. The importance of the measures in a global context was also limited due to the still relatively low number of RFBs^[17].

The situation started to change when the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was agreed on and adopted in 1982. The Convention envisaged several new functions and activities to be undertaken by RFBs regarding high sea stocks and fishing, advice to coastal states, dispute settlement and marine mammal protection. This prompted RFBs to review their mandates and a number of new RFBs were established. However, RFBs still generally remained without fisheries management authority.

Since the mid-1990s, several important international fisheries instruments containing key provisions relevant to the participation of RFBs in their implementation have been introduced, i.e. the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement^[18], the 1995 United Nations Fish Stock Agreement^[19] and in 1995 the CCRF. The CCRF has later been supplemented with a number of IPOAs. The IPOA to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU) in 2001 refers particularly to RFBs.^[20] There are also other international conventions calling for increased regional cooperation such as the WSSD Plan of Implementation.^[21]

The provisions relating to the role of RFBs in these more recent fisheries instruments indicate recognition by the international community that cooperation among states is essential for ensuring a sustainable utilization of aquatic resources and that RFBs should be given increased decision making power and authority. Recognising that, in most cases, the present fisheries management systems have failed to be effective, the concept of "fisheries governance" has emerged. Fisheries governance is a broader concept than conservation and management, or sustainable development. It represents a participative, inclusive and flexible approach and recognizes the global network in which governments, institutions and stakeholders interact. In this system, RFBs serve as a gateway between the global and national levels of fisheries governance.^[22]

Sound regional governance depends on effective inputs from member states and organizations. There has to be a political willingness of member states to participate openly and to delegate authority to the regional bodies. The RFBs, and their members, also have to have the capacity to meet financial and technical obligations^[23]. While constraints exist - in varying degrees - many RFBs contribute to governance in a number of areas. In a questionnaire survey, RFBs were asked about activities and priorities of their organizations. The answers showed that some of the most important issues were those surrounding responsible fisheries management, the CWP-21 approach, bycatch and IUU fishing.^[24]

FAO has hosted three meetings of RFBs; in 1999, 2001 and 2003. These meetings have given an opportunity to discuss and coordinate issues of concern to RFBs. For example, the need to improve information on status and trends was discussed in the early meetings and the RFBs participated in the development of the Strategy - STF. Constraints with regard to availability of relevant information and accurate data and statistics constitute major concerns in many RFBs. In addition to the generally increased demand on the RFBs related to their evolving role in fisheries governance - increasing their need for capacity building and access to information and data - several of the issues covered by the Strategy - STF are directly relevant to the activities of many RFBs, e.g. the application of the CWP-21 approach to fisheries management and collaboration with FIGIS-FIRMS.

The Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP)

The Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) was initially established in 1959 to improve the collection and reporting on fishery statistics in the North Atlantic area. However, in 1995 it was modified and reconstituted due to increasing demands for reliable fishery statistics and its scope was widened to include all parts of the world. The terms of reference of the CWP include to review requirements for fishery statistics, to agree standards concepts, definitions, classifications and methodologies, and to make recommendations and coordinate activities with regard to collection and dissemination of fishery statistics^[25].

The CWP consists of experts nominated by intergovernmental organizations having competence in fishery statistics. FAO, several RFBs and other organizations concerned with fishery statistics, e.g Eurostat and OECD, are members of the CWP. The CWP participates in the FAO-RFBs meetings mentioned above.

In the Twentieth CWP Session in 2003^[26], the possible role of CWP and RFBs in the implementation of the Strategy - STF was discussed. The CWP had participated in Technical Consultation on Improving Information on the Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries in March 2002 and RFBs were involved in the development of the Strategy - STF. The meeting agreed that CWP should support the implementation of the Strategy - STF within the framework of its mandate. At the Intersessional Meeting of CWP Agencies in February 2004, it was agreed to organize the RFB-STF Workshop to discuss in more detail the roles of CWP and RFBs in the implementation of the Strategy - STF.

The objectives of the Strategy are similar to those of the CWP and several elements of the Strategy - STF are of direct concern to the CWP, e.g:

• Development of standards and quality criteria for data and information.

• Collaboration with FIGIS-FIRMS.

• Development of socio-economic and environmental sustainability indicators (work carried out by Eurostat and SEAFDEC).

POSSIBLE ROLES OF RFBs AND THE CWP IN IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY

Summary of the context and framework for cooperation

As noted in the discussion above, there are several elements of the Strategy - STF that are of direct interest to RFBs and the CWP. Some RFBs and the CWP are already carrying out activities related to actions proposed by the Strategy - STF, e.g.:

• Implementation of an CWP-21 approach and the development of socio-economic and environmental sustainability indicators.

• Collaboration with FIGIS-FIRMS.

• Development of standards and quality criteria for data and information.

In the Strategy - STF, the possibility for States to participate in the implementation of the Strategy - STF through their membership in RFBs is directly mentioned in several of the proposals for required actions, i.e.:

• Development of standards and systems for data collection for small-scale fisheries and multispecies fisheries.

• Expansion of the scope and collection of information to support the incorporation of CWP-21 considerations into fisheries management and development of indicators of sustainable development.

• Establishment of a process for scientific oversight of status and trends information in relation to the global inventory of stocks and fisheries.

• Support and participation for the development of FIGIS.

• Development of mechanisms for information exchange.

• Establishment of working groups for enhancing the quality and transparency of scientific information.

However, the participation of RFBs is not limited to the above areas of activities. The overall approach of the Strategy - STF and the FishCode - STF Project is participatory and its guidelines indicate that RFBs and the CWP should contribute, within the limits of their mandates, to the implementation of the Strategy - STF. Moreover, RFBs - particularly in regions of developing countries - are mentioned as potential beneficiaries of the envisaged capacity building exercises. This approach is consistent with the overall development of fisheries governance and the recognition of the importance of increased regional and global cooperation by policy-makers in national, regional and international institutions and organizations.

In Southeast Asia, where activities regarding the statistical system inventory have been started, the FishCode - STF Project is working in partnership with SEAFDEC. For the forthcoming inventories in other regions, partner organizations have not yet been identified but it is the intention of the Project to seek similar arrangements with regional organizations. The mutual advantages of this implementation approach are evident. The Project gains in effectiveness by benefiting from the regional knowledge of the RFB and from the increased efficiency in contacts and communications. The RFB is given an opportunity to enhance its own capacity with regard to assembly and dissemination of status and trends information and also to provide views and inputs into an international process of improving information at national, regional and global levels.

The FishCode - STF Project has only recently become operational and is at the beginning of its first four-year phase for Component 1. Plans and arrangements for its implementation are in the process of being elaborated and established. As seen from the discussion in this document, the arguments for cooperation and a wide participation in the implementation of the Strategy - STF are many and the RFB community is called upon for its support. The RFB-STF Workshop gives an opportunity for potential RFB partners to reflect on their possible roles, to provide inputs and suggest contributions for incorporation into the Project activities and implementation arrangements.

Suggested topics for discussion in RFB-STF Workshop

In order to identify collaboration opportunities and to define possible partnership arrangements for the effective implementation of the Strategy - STF through the FishCode - STF Project, this document suggests a number of issues to be discussed in the RFB-STF Workshop. These issues concern common areas of interest and suggestions for partnership activities, modalities of cooperation and institutional arrangements and needs for capacity building.

1. What are the areas of common interests of the FishCode - STF Project, the RFBs and CWP?

1. What activities and interests does the CWP have that are relevant to the implementation of the Strategy - STF?
2. What activities and interests do individual RFBs have that are relevant to the implementation of the Strategy - STF?
3. Are there areas of interest common to the RFB community as a whole that are of relevance to the implementation of the Strategy - STF?

Workshop participants are invited to report on the work programmes of their organizations.

2. What activities would be suitable for partnership implementation? Suggestions from FishCode - STF Project management include:

1. Inventory of existing fishery data collection systems, fishery resources and fisheries and incorporation of results into FIGIS.
   The inventory will build on work already carried out by FIGIS-FIRMS. Collaboration with RFBs could be envisaged for the operational aspects of the inventory, including questionnaire surveys and regional workshops, development of protocols and validation of results.
2. Development of criteria, methods and processes for ensuring the quality and security of information on status and trends.
   The principle of best scientific evidence should apply to information on status and trends in accordance with internationally agreed standards and practices. RFBs, possibly through the CWP, could participate in defining criteria and methods and establishing a process and arrangements for scientific oversight of status and trends information. A working group of appointed experts could be established for this purpose.
3. Expanding the scope of information on status and trends of fisheries to include economic, social and environmental aspects and allow for the incorporation of CWP-21 considerations into fisheries management.
   Several RFBs are already working on introducing the CWP-21 approach in relation to fisheries management. The Project could work with RFBs on issues related to status and trends information needed for the CWP-21 approach and indicators for sustainable development.

The Workshop is asked to review these proposals and recommend additions, elaborations and amendments.

3. What implementation arrangements should be established for the partnership activities and what institutional aspects need to be considered?
For each proposed partnership activity, it is proposed that the following issues are discussed:

1. Which RFBs - and other organizations - should participate?
2. How should the partnership activity be organized, e.g. by the establishment of a working group, bilateral agreements between the participating RFB(s) and the Project for the provision of certain services, organization of workshops, expert consultations, etc.?
3. Are there formalities and issues with regard to the mandate of the RFB(s) and their relation with Member States that need to be considered in a partnership agreement between the RFB(s) and the Project?
4. Are there other issues relating to institutional arrangements that need to be taken into consideration?

4. What are the needs for capacity building in RFBs with regard to implementing the Strategy - STF and improving information on status and trends of capture fisheries in general and with regard to the proposed activities for collaboration in particular?

The Workshop is requested to prepare a report on their findings and recommendations to be presented to the Twenty-first CWP Session, starting on 1 March 2005.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Appropriate and accurate information is essential for all policy development and decision-making and the fisheries sector is no exception. While fishery data collection and research have been the subject of various international instruments and initiatives, the assembly and dissemination of status and trends information have received less attention. The preparation and adoption of the Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries is a crucial framework for improving this situation and its implementation will create important benefits to fisheries management and conservation. However, the Strategy - STF will only be effective if widely implemented and all national, regional and global organizations and institutions concerned with the management and use of aquatic resources are urged to support and participate in this work.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FAO. 1995. The Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics: Its origin, role and structure. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 903. FAO, Rome. 82 p.

FAO. 1999. Report of the Meeting of FAO and Non-FAO Regional Fishery Bodies or Arrangements. Rome, 11 - 12 February 1999. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 597. Rome, FAO. 53p.

FAO. 2003. World Summit on Sustainable Development 202 and its Implications for Fisheries. COFI/2003/Inf.14. Twenty-fifth Session of FAO Committee on Fisheries. Rome, Italy, 24 - 28 February 2003. FAO, Rome. 12 p.

FAO. 2003b. Report of the third Meeting of Regional Fishery Bodies. Rome, 3 - 4 March 2003. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 703. FAO, Rome. 26 p.

FAO. 2003c. Report of the twentieth session of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics. Victoria, Seychelles, 21 - 24 January 2003. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 709. FAO, Rome. 65 p.

FAO. 2003d. Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries. Stratégie visant à améliorer l'information sur la situation et les tendances des pêches de capture. Estrategia para mejorar la información sobre la situación y las tendencias de la pesca de captura. Rome/Roma, FAO. 34p.

FAO. Undated. Project Document FishCode Programme Component: Improving Information on Status and Trends in Fisheries. FAO/Governments Cooperative Programme.

FAO/FIGIS-FIRMS. 2002. Report of the FIGIS-FIRMS Methodological Workshop, 1 - 5 July 2002, Rome, Italy. 11p.

Swan, J. 2003. Summary information on the role of international fishery organizations or arrangements and other bodies concerned with the conservation and management of living aquatic resources. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 985. Rome, FAO. 114 p.

Swan, J. 2004. Decision-making in Regional Fishery Bodies or Arrangements: the evolving role of RFBs and international agreement on decision-making processes. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 995. Rome, FAO. 82 p.

Annex C

Workshop
on
The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries

ICES Secretariat, Copenhagen
28 February - 1 March 2005

Agenda and Timetable

APPENDIX 8

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX 9

LIST OF REGIONAL FISHERY BODIES

ATLANTIC OCEAN AND ADJACENT SEAS

INDIAN OCEAN REGION

*) Not yet established/operational.

PACIFIC OCEAN REGION

*) Not yet established/operational.

INLAND

NB. APFIC in the Pacific also covers inland waters.

GLOBAL AND TRANS-OCEAN

Source: Swan (2003) and FAO Web site database for RFBs.

APPENDIX 10

ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION FROM CWP-21

The following are extracts (by paragraph) from the body of the Report of the Twenty-first Session of CWP, citing all recommendations and other items requiring action:

71. On the issue of submission of trade document information to RFBs (para. 57), it was agreed that the recommendation should be retained by the CWP-21. ICCAT and IATTC informed the meeting that they do receive export/import information in a summarized form and that work is in process to improve trade reporting. In relation to this matter, CCAMLR, ICCAT and IATTC reported that systems are in place requiring catch documentation for producers to obtain permission to trade products. ICCAT also informed the meeting that the organization will hold a workshop in April 2005 in Tokyo, Japan, to review the statistical monitoring programs. All tuna RFBs are invited to participate in the meeting.

76. As a follow-up to discussions in CWP-20, the question of whether CWP should assume a more active advocacy role was considered again. The agreement in CWP-20 was that while CWP should promote improvements in fishery statistics, a more pro-active approach was not felt to be appropriate. This sentiment was reconfirmed and it was agreed CWP should continue to seize opportunities and use them judicially to exercise influence and give advice as appropriate. It was also agreed that a CWP statement should be prepared for the FAO COFI meeting by the vice-chairperson and that CWP should be represented at COFI and the RFB meetings by the vice-chairperson (see Appendix 5).

77. A project is underway to develop a new version of the FAO FISHSTAT software. A preliminary version of FISHSTAT 3.0 was presented to CWP-20. However, most CWP member users are satisfied with FISHSTAT 2.3 even though the programme has some weaknesses, i.e. problems of installation on new Windows platforms and difficulties when setting up new datasets. If and when a new version is developed, the meeting recommended that the user interface should not be changed substantially and that the new software should be thoroughly tested before being distributed.

78. The meeting was asked about the usefulness of the different functions available in FISHSTAT 2.3. A group of meeting participants reviewed this question in more detail and arrived at the following conclusions:

• The data extraction handling facilities constitute the most useful feature of FishStat. The standard groups and customized groupings are deemed very useful as is the copy-paste facility into Excel. In addition to the grand total, sub-totals could be added. The averaging function is episodically used. Flag symbols are used together with filtering and sorting functions, both very useful for extraction.

• Regarding usability aspects, the user interface is generally highly rated. The various features such as visual assistance for species group definition and item selection, or for exploration of long time series on the screen, as well as multiple ways to handle commands (menu, short key, right click) are much appreciated noticeably for switching instantaneously from species common names to scientific names.

• The embedded graphing facility appears not be used.

• Some problems were highlighted: the custom settings (groups, views) unfortunately disappear each time data sets are updated. The users should be encouraged to read dataset notes since this is the place where data set peculiarities (such as "there is no overlap of data between Canada/Maritime, Canada/Quebec, and Canada/Maritime and Quebec") are documented.

• Routine dataset updates are handled by a very restricted set of people and do not pose any problem. Adding new datasets with similar structure to those existing or updating the existing structure may require some time (Eurostat recently added the New Chronos database). Adding new datasets may prove to be impossible without the assistance of a skilled developer. Plans for new datasets are: IATTC intends to disseminate its capture statistics through Fishstat; FIDI would like to add the FAO food balance sheet time series.

83. The Workshop was attended by ten participants from RFBs and FAO who made the following recommendations with regard to future partnership activities:

• The FishCode - STF Project and FAO should assist RFBs in increasing the awareness of the importance of the implementation of the STF Strategy.

• The FishCode - STF Project and FAO, together with the RFBs, should stress the importance of and promote actions on transparent and complete national data collection of fisheries.

• The FishCode - STF Project should cooperate with RFBs on the carrying out of inventories of data collection systems and status of stocks, in particular in supporting their contribution to FIRMS.

• FishCode - STF Project should seek collaboration with interested RFBs for the development of monitoring systems for small-scale fisheries in developing countries. All RFBs may assist with the identification of expertise for technical assistance.

• The FishCode - STF Project should consider developing guidelines for the establishment of data exchange protocols based on the CWP handbook on fisheries statistical standards.

84. CWP accepted the report and agreed that the recommendations in paragraph 83 above should be taken further. The main text of the Workshop report is included in Appendix 7 herein.

87. Another recommendation from the Expert Consultation was the formation of an advisory body for issues in aquaculture data and statistics, much as the CWP functions for capture fisheries. The CWP session discussed the possibilities for such a committee - in particular, whether this could be assumed within the existing CWP mission, or whether a sub-committee of the CWP, or an entirely new body, should be formed. After an informal polling of the members on their interest and relevance to aquaculture, the CWP agreed that for the present time the best solution was to have an interested subgroup of the CWP perform this function.

89. The complexities involved in obtaining accurate statistics for capture-based aquaculture (tuna-farming being the most prominent current example) were discussed. The CWP reaffirmed the concept of separating the capture and aquaculture components of capture-based aquaculture, while acknowledging the difficulties involved in collecting the data. The CWP was informed of the activities of the GFCM/ICCAT Ad Hoc Working Group on Tuna Farming and the development of guidelines to be completed imminently.

90. Possible use of a "capture-based aquaculture" worksheet to accompany the FISHSTAT AQ was discussed, with the idea that such a worksheet could reinforce the accepted definitions among data providers. It was agreed that activities in this area should be coordinated among the interested organizations. Eurostat informed the CWP meeting concerning of the proposed revision to aquaculture legislation and the attempts to assure compatibility with FAO data collections.

93. CWP agreed to accept the proposal made by IATTC that when length is used, the measurement should be "length overall" (LOA) according to the following definition:

Length overall is defined as the distance measured in metres in a straight line on a line parallel to the design waterline between the foremost point of the bow and the aftermost point of the stern. For the purpose of this definition:

c) the bow is taken to include the watertight hull structure, the forecastle, stem and forward bulkward, if fitted, but not to include bowsprits and safety rail.

d) the stern is taken to include the watertight hull structure, transom, poop, trawl ramp and bulwark, but does not include safety rails, bumkins, propulsion machinery, rudders and steering gear, and divers’ ladders and platforms.

94. On the issue of vessel classifications, FAO presented a new proposal on the outstanding issue of multipurpose vessels based on earlier proposals discussed by the CWP. After discussing several alternatives, CWP agreed to use the following vessel categories:

• Dredgers
• Gillnetters
• Longliners
• Lift netters
• Multipurpose vessels:
  • Multipurpose trawlers (in combination with longline, trap, gillnet, dredge)
  • Purse seine/pelagic trawlers
  • Multipurpose non trawlers (longline, gillnet, trap)
• Purse seiners
• Seiners
• Trap setters
• Trawlers
• Other fishing vessels

This is the final step of the revision initiated at CWP-19 and the meeting agreed that the proposal, together with those already endorsed by CWP-19 and CWP-20, become the new International Standard Statistical Classification of Fishing Vessels (ISSCFV - 2005). This new classification will be updated in the "CWP Handbook of fishery statistical standards", and a parallel revision and reprint of the FAO Fisheries Technical Paper number 267 "Definition and Classification of fishery vessel types" will be required.

100. It was noted by the FAO Expert Consultation that the knowledge of CWP among fisheries experts and officials appears limited and it was recommended that measures should be taken to increase the awareness of CWP (para. 9). The meeting agreed with this conclusion and it was recommended that CWP members should work towards giving CWP more visibility. IATTC also suggested that RBFs that are not yet members should be contacted and invited to join CWP. A comprehensive list of RFBs is provided in Appendix 9.

103. In conclusion, it was agreed that the CWP was not currently in a position to review and possibly recommend NAF as a standard, particularly since the instrument is not yet fully developed. It was also agreed to establish an inter-sessional electronic working group consisting of all CWP members and coordinated by NAFO. The working group was asked to propose possible amendments to the present NAF that would ensure its usefulness for assessment and scientific purposes. The results will be made available to NEAFC Advisory Group and discussed in CWP-22.

104. The recommendation by the FAO Expert Consultation to harmonize fields and codes in vessel databases relates to a similar recommendation made by CWP-20 (para. 69 of document CWP-21/4). Some time ago, FAO circulated a proposal for a common format for vessel records to CWP members but no response has been received so far. The meeting agreed that efforts should continue to achieve a common format and that the recommendation of CWP-20 should be retained.

106. The meeting noted the FAO Expert Consultation’s recommendation that CWP adopt the UN-LOCODE^[27] as a standard for identification of fishing ports (para. 13). The meeting agreed that RFBs should study the proposed code system and the matter will be included in the agenda of CWP-22 for further discussion in 2007.

107. With regard to the recommendation on CWP’s involvement in MCS operational matters, i.e. on standards for international exchange of information on vessel authorizations and on definitions of fisheries violations and related codes, the FAO Expert Consultation noted that addressing the recommendation would require a review of the CWP mandate (para. 14). The meeting felt that this was not desirable at the moment and agreed to support the work of other agencies.

109. The meeting discussed various positions that CWP could take with regard to the recommendations. It was felt that CWP should not be directly involved in MCS or legal matters as such but that there are elements of MCS that are of relevance to the work of CWP. Moreover, it was pointed out that, although VMS is currently mainly used for MCS purposes, the system could also be used for generating data for assessment of stocks and fisheries as well as for other scientific purposes. The meeting recognized that, in addition to not falling strictly under the CWP mandate, CWP does not have the technical expertise required for dealing with many of the technical MCS matters. The possibility of cooperating with other organizations on aspects of MCS that do not fall within the current mandate of CWP was discussed. The International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network for Fisheries Related Activities (MCS Network)^[28] was identified as a possible partner. The meeting agreed that CWP should take the initiative to contact the MCS Network with the aim to conduct a joint workshop during the intersessional period in which the recommendations of the FAO Expert Consultation be reviewed in order to establish if there are recommendations that MCS Network would like to follow up.

111. The document consists of two parts, a review of current issues and programmes, and a section proposing actions for FAO’s continued work. FAO suggested that the review part of the document be published as a FAO Fisheries Circular or similar document. It was pointed out that some time had passed since the draft was prepared and that it may need further revision. It was agreed that OECD and Eurostat would review relevant sections of the document and provide comments to FAO by 1 July 2005 after which the report will be published. FAO was requested to ensure that the date of the preparation of the text clearly appears on the document.

115. The meeting discussed the difficulty of defining quality and how this should be dealt with in the process of developing practical guidelines. ICES explained that the organization has several working groups working on issues related to data quality. The experience is that data quality is context dependent and that the quality requirements depend on the end use of the data, including the objectives of the users. Recognising this, the meeting recommended that FAO reverse the order of the first two phases of the proposed activities:

• Phase 1: Organization of an Expert Consultation to further develop objectives and outcomes, and assist in capacity building.

• Phase 2: Establishment of a working group for addressing data quality indicators, metadata and data systems; methodologies for an evaluation and assessment approach; and assessment of cost-effectiveness.

• Phase 3: ACFR review of progress.

It was felt that the overall framework and specifications of relevant data quality situations should be discussed in an Expert Consultation before more detailed work was proposed to a working group.

116. FAO aims at having the draft guidelines ready for review by the Twenty-second Session of the CWP in 2007.

119. Referring to a letter received from Eurostat, the meeting discussed the possibility of reducing the duration of the CWP sessions. It was agreed that the Secretariat should aim at holding the CWP Session, the FIRMS Steering Committee meeting and any related workshop during the same week, i.e. in a maximum of five working days. It was also noted that the agenda should include detailed annotations clearly indicating the matters to be discussed. Such annotations will facilitate a better understanding by external parties of the duration of the meeting.

122. The CWP members confirmed that they shared the understanding of the concept of data exchange protocol given in paragraphs 120 - 121 above. It was recommended that this concept as presented here be included in the Fisheries Data Quality indicator development framework (see paragraphs 110 - 116 above).

124. Eurostat pointed out that when modifications are made by RFBs or other agencies to data received from member states on the FISHSTAT or STATLANT questionnaires, it is important to inform the relevant authorities in the member state of the change. An incident with data reported to and modified by FAO was mentioned as an example and Eurostat urged the CWP members to ensure that proper procedures are followed. ICES reported to have similar experiences, also involving problems of data inconsistencies when databases are not updated simultaneously. CWP agreed that such procedures should be followed.