OPENING OF THE SESSION

1. The Tenth Session of the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean Committee on Fisheries Management was held at FAO Headquarters, Rome, from 17 to 20 June 1997.

2. The Session was attended by delegates from 14 Members of the Council, by observers from the European Community (EC) and the Russian Federation, and by a representative of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The Session was also attended by observers from Greenpeace International and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The list of participants is given in Appendix C to this report.

3. The Session was opened by Mr Y. Kato, Director of the Fishery Policy and Planning Division, who, on behalf of the Director-General of FAO, Mr J. Diouf, welcomed the delegates and thanked them for their continuing support to GFCM activities.

4. Mr Kato mentioned the overcapacity of fishing fleets all over the world particularly in the Mediterranean and the threat such fleets constitute to the major fishing stocks in the region. Referring to the different international agreements related to fisheries, he underlined the increasing responsibilities of GFCM as to the management of fisheries in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and in particular straddling, shared and highly migratory fish stocks. Mr Kato also stressed the need to take into consideration not only the status of the resources and the capacity of the fleet exploiting these resources but also the socio-economic factors and the development levels of the countries concerned when recommending measures for appropriate management of the Mediterranean fisheries.

5. Mr Kato informed the Committee that the Secretariat was preparing a proposal for an autonomous budget for submission to the next Session of the Council and called for guidance from the Committee to allow the Secretariat to finalize the necessary document concerning the strengthening of the Council and the enforcement of its management capability.

6. Mr J.A. Camiñas, Director of the Oceanographic Centre of Malaga, Spain, and Mr Y. Ouati, Chief of the Marine Resources Protection Division, Morocco, were elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively of the Session.

7. The Agenda shown in Appendix A was adopted. The documents which were before the Session are listed in Appendix B.

8. The Secretariat informed the Committee that on 12 June 1997 Japan deposited a letter of Acceptance of the GFCM Agreement and therefore was considered a Member of GFCM as of that date. The Chairman invited the Japanese delegation to take its place in the meeting accordingly.

9. The Japanese delegation declared that Japan was pleased to become a Member of the Council and indicated his country's willingness to cooperate closely with all the Member countries of GFCM in order to promote better management of the fishery resources in the Mediterranean.

10. The Committee welcomed the new Member and expressed its confidence that Japan would contribute substantially to GFCM activities.

11. The Secretariat introduced document GFCM:CFM/97/2 emphasizing the need for follow-up and close monitoring of the recommendations made by the GFCM. Special reference was made to the four Resolutions adopted by the Twenty-first Session of the GFCM (Alicante, May 1995).

12. The Committee reviewed the four recommendations made by GFCM, that is Resolutions 1, 2, 3 and 4. Several delegations reported on action taken at national level to comply with these Resolutions.

13. The delegate from Japan stated his country's strong support on Resolution 95/1 (see paragraph 10 of the GFCM Report), and asked the Secretariat to confirm its legal status. The Secretariat confirmed that it was a recommendation adopted under Article III6 and Article V of the GFCM Agreement. The delegate of Spain informed the Committee that his country was bound by these resolutions as a member of ICCAT and GFCM and was taking the necessary measures to comply with them. The delegate also informed the Committee that the bluefin tuna minimum size regulation has been fully implemented by the Spanish authorities and that measures were being taken to reduce the effort by 25% by 1998. Spain also expressed the wish to see GFCM and ICCAT cooperating in the decision-making process related to the management of large-scale pelagic stocks in the Mediterranean.

14. The delegate of Morocco also informed the Committee that a list of fishing vessels was being prepared in accordance with Resolutions 95/2 and 95/4 of GFCM. This list would be sent to the Secretariat in the near future. The delegate noted however that the list would not include artisanal fishing units and fishing vessels operating in the Mediterranean under fishing agreement. The Committee was also informed that Morocco stopped any licencing for new fishing units, implemented the maximum size of 2.5 km for driftnets in the Mediterranean and set up a closed season for sport fishing concerning some species that have shown a decline in catch (case of grouper), in particular during the reproduction season.

15. The delegate of Morocco stated that GFCM had taken a series of measures that needed follow-up. The delegate suggested that a monitoring and evaluation structure be established within GFCM to evaluate the action undertaken by each Member country with respect to the enforcement of Resolutions adopted by the Council.

16. The delegate of Italy declared that his country has taken steps to enforce the GFCM Resolutions despite difficulties in the nature of some fishing practices.

17. The observer from UNEP informed the Committee of another intersessional activity not included in the Agenda. This was the preparation of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis in the Mediterranean (TDA MED) sponsored by MAP in the framework of the GEF funded project aiming to address pollution from land-based activities. The TDA was an overview of all regional problems of transboundary significance relevant to the environment and natural resources. One chapter of the TDA referred to living marine resources and was divided into two sections: fisheries and aquaculture. The section on fisheries has been prepared by the GFCM Secretariat in line with Resolution 95/3 inviting cooperation between GFCM and UNEP's Mediterranean Action Plan.

18. The TDA on fisheries (distributed to the Committee) not only identified the problems but also proposed actions for alleviating them, including appropriate associated costs. Eleven problems were identified and the cost of alleviating these problems was evaluated at US$ 4.5 million over a three to five years period. The Mediterranean countries would consider the documents in September 1997. The document would be presented to a donors meeting within an investment portfolio by the end of 1997. The Committee expressed interest in this project and suggested that the Council should be informed about this cooperative work.

19. The EC reiterated the importance of the recommendations adopted at the Twenty-first Session of GFCM, particularly Resolution 95/1 related to the conservation and management of bluefin tuna and the necessity for the implementation of this Resolution. The EC informed GFCM members that, in accordance with its exclusive competence in the field of management and conservation of the fisheries resources, it adopted in June 1996 a rule that introduced in the Community legislation the measures adopted by GFCM concerning the yearly closed season for bluefin tuna fishing (1 June to 31 July). The other measures stipulated by Resolution 95/1 were already part of Community legislation. The EC wished to underline the need for continued cooperation between GFCM and ICCAT which led to the adoption of such measures.

20. The EC made a presentation of its extensive fisheries research activities in the Mediterranean, stressing the importance of rational management based on the best available scientific information. The delegation also informed the Committee that the Community recently agreed on Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes (MAGPs IV) for the next five years, which established objectives for the reduction of fishing capacity or effort on the basis of the state of exploitation of the main groups of stocks.

21. These new MAGPs would continue the process of adjusting fleet capacities to the available resources which has been underway over the last years and which, over the period 1992-96, achieved significant reductions in excess fleet capacity.

22. Discussion on specific proposals for effort reduction, however, should be postponed until a new GFCM structure is decided upon. In any case, the debate initiated on the basis of document GFCM:CFM/97/3 should be finalized before entering into detail on effort management.

23. The EC delegate welcomed the suggestion made for GFCM countries to reinforce their statistical systems. The creation of data networks covering landing sites was a responsibility of member States. The EC informed the Committee that since 1994 it was funding the collection of these data through special programmes which had been put in place in Member countries.

24. Referring to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the report of the Twenty-first Session of GFCM, the delegate from Spain invited the Secretariat to make every effort in future to avoid delay in the distribution of meeting documents, and to include in the agenda of the Technical Consultation item of interest as identified by the GFCM and its Committee on Fisheries Management.

25. The Committee reviewed the two recommendations proposed in paras 18 and 36 of the report of the Eastern Mediterranean Consultation concerning the exploitation of young swordfish in the subregion and sport fishing respectively.

26. The delegate from Spain suggested that swordfish may be a common stock to the whole Mediterranean and further assessment work is required before adoption of restrictive measures. While supporting the position of Spain in requesting further analysis of the swordfish stocks, the delegate of Morocco suggested that the precautionary approach should apply if it is believed that there is a serious risk that the species is overexploited.

27. The delegate of EC informed the Committee that conservation measures for swordfish are included in the Council's Regulations. These include a minimum landing size of 120 cm (lower jaw length for swordfish). A register of vessels fishing swordfish has already been made, including specifications of the vessel characteristics, main gear used and zones and period of activity.

28. Bearing in mind that the documents were not received on time to allow some countries to take position, the Committee decided that further thought is required and that it was not prepared to take position on the two Resolutions on a Mediterranean wide basis. The Secretariat informed the meeting that its views would be reported to the Council at its next Session.

29. The EC delegate made a number of other observations concerning the Consultation on Stock Assessment in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. He pointed out that given that the reduction of by-catch, incidental deaths due to fishing and discards, may be the more promising ways of increasing fishery yields and research should focus on the early stages of life for demersal fish. Referring to the suggestion made by the Consultation concerning hake stocks in the subregion, the EC delegate suggested that the recommendations needed to be better substantiated at the level of the technical consultations and in the framework of the proposed Scientific Committee before their discussion in the Management Committee. With regard to the impact of aquaculture activities on small-scale fisheries, it was considered that aquaculture was inevitably accompanied by the accidental or intentional escape of individuals and if this happened on a substantial scale, problems may arise from ecological competition and genetic change. The Committee was informed that research on the issue is being carried out by EC.

30. Referring to the Consultation's recommendation concerning the methods used for collection, treatment, summarization and storage of catch data by species, the Committee noted that States of the EC have submitted to EUROSTAT methodological reports describing how the data on landing and catches are derived, with indications as to their reliability.

31. The Committee noted with great concern the existence of unflagged fishing vessels operating in the Mediterranean. The Committee invited Member countries to provide the Secretariat with information that may help in the identification of these vessels.

32. The Committee considered the recommendations of the Working Group and noted that thanks to the support of the European Community this group had now held its third meeting and was proving to be an important catalyst for dealing with the problems faced by the Council in the management of key shared resources of a Mediterranean-wide nature. It would appear that ICCAT still had the key role with respect to assessment of the bluefin tuna stock. However, the role of GFCM was indispensable, especially in assisting in data collection by countries that were not members of that body.

33. The Working Group had noted that more than 100 unflagged and un-named vessels were operating in the Central and Western Mediterranean. The Committee noted that vessels which were operating under the flags of Belize, Honduras and Panama were not providing data on their fishing operations. It was noted that the GFCM/ICCAT Working Group had requested some Member countries such as Algeria, Libya, Malta, Tunisia and Turkey to report on their recent catches of bluefin tuna. Although no formal bluefin tuna assessment was concluded, considerable concern was expressed that estimated total catches have remained at a high level (27 000 tons) in 1995, despite an apparent decline in abundance as shown by catch rate data.

34. The Committee noted the problems of improving data reporting and also invited Member countries to adopt the GFCM Resolutions into national legislations and to make provisions for their enforcement.

35. As follow-up to the Second Diplomatic Conference, a Working Group on Legal and Technical Aspects of Fisheries in the Mediterranean was organized by the EC in conformity with the Solemn Declaration adopted by the Second Diplomatic Conference and held in Montpellier, France from 21 to 25 April 1997. The meeting was attended by experts from countries that had been represented at the Diplomatic Conference and by representatives from FAO/GFCM. The meeting discussed various issues, including the setting-up of common management systems for fisheries in the Mediterranean, strengthening of regional cooperation with the view to enforcement of the conservation and management measures adopted by GFCM, upgrading of cooperation among the regional organizations dealing with fisheries in the GFCM area and the improvement of data collection and exchange. The meeting agreed on the need to strengthen GFCM in order to permit it to address the new challenges facing it and to play its role as a regional management organization.

36. The Committee noted the conclusions of the Working Group and requested the Secretariat to prepare the necessary documentation for consideration at the next Session of the Council, taking into consideration the conclusions and recommendations of the last Council and other meetings organized during the intersessional period, grouping GFCM Member countries.

37. The Director of COPEMED described the major objectives of his project. He informed the Committee that the project was designed to develop regular training network in the area, help in the standardization of methodologies in fisheries data processing and assessment techniques, set up regular working groups to assess the state of shared and/or straddling stocks, establish electronic communications network and prepare, at request of countries involved, pilot plans in this field.

38. In this respect, the project has so far established direct contacts with national research centres in view of setting up the organizational framework for the implementation of the project activities. The project initiated the development of the database, that will include information on research and development capabilities and means in the subregion, the bibliography available and the fleet typology. The project has started also the installation and testing of compatible and friendly data processing equipment and the identification of the working group for the period 1997-98.

39. The Committee considered document GFCM:CFM/97/3: Strategies and mechanisms for fisheries management in the GFCM area, and the phased approach it proposed, to be a useful basis for a coordinated approach to effort control by the Council, and even though there was obviously the need for more technical discussion and analysis of many of the aspects it contained, it was felt desirable to maintain the momentum towards management coordination by implementing some of the aspects in the first phase of the plan proposed.

40. The Committee recognized that a phased approach to implementation would be needed, and most of its considerations were devoted to discussing the first phase of the plan, and it was recognized that a number of countries had already made notable progress in implementation; both with respect to Phase I, and later Phases of the plan outlined in the document.

41. The Committee noted that many of the issues raised in document GFCM:CFM/97/3 obviously required further technical analysis and refinement in the course of implementation and suggested that this document be brought forward again to the next meeting of the Council. By that time, member countries should have taken the time to study it in more detail, assembled the necessary information to discuss it in more detail, and be prepared to take the next step in a process which undoubtedly will require a number of years for full implementation.

42. A number of countries reported that they had already made some progress in bringing fleet capacity under control, and in clarifying licensing requirements and the conditions for vessel replacement by new vessels with comparable fishing power. Other countries had initiated a sampling coverage of principal ports in an attempt to estimate the number of small vessels operating in their waters. In some cases, the method of control of fleet capacity used was a temporary freeze of financial assistance in vessel construction. The Committee commended these efforts, and noted that independent progress in parallel with a coordinated effort to introduce limits to fleet capacity, could only be to the benefit of improved management of the resources.

43. It was felt that priority should be given to establishing a common data base on the existing fleet of vessels of 15 m OAL currently operating outside national jurisdiction, as specified in the GFCM Resolution 95/4. In this respect, there was consensus that the response of member countries to the deadline of October 1995 suggested in Alicante fell well short of the requirement for reporting. It was agreed that the situation should be urgently rectified prior to the next meeting of the Council. The Committee recommended that countries provide their fleet data in the format given in Appendix 1 to this report, and ensure that it arrived at the Secretariat not later than 1 October 1997, so that a summary could be prepared for consideration at the next Session of the Council.

44. Evidently, for most coastal States, fishing fleets flying their national flag mostly operate within the GFCM statistical sub-area or areas their coastlines fall into; especially for demersal resources. In fact, the data on fleets requested at the last Council (Appendix 1), specified that this data should be broken down by port: either port of registry, or if this differed from the port of registry, the port from which the vessel usually operated. Where port of operation was not relevant or known, as for example with distant-water fleets, (and some vessels from a few Mediterranean coastal States which fish distant from port), an attempt should be made to specify within which GFCM Statistical sub-area that particular component of the national fleet operated.

45. The form shown in Appendix 1 proposed that the categorization of fishing units followed guidelines for vessels and gears spelled out in FAO Technical Papers 267 and 222 respectively. It was noted by the Secretariat, however, that in light of the short deadline for submission, the minimum requirements for classification of fishing units other than length of vessels, horse power, and gross registered tonnage, should be those entered into the Authorization to Fish. At a minimum, it should be possible to distinguish type of vessel and fishing operation into trawlers, purse seiners, long liners and gillnetters. Other vessel/gear categories not mentioned in the previous sentence, can be specified, where this was relevant to the local fishery. This data set, once complete, will allow a first breakdown by area of operation of fishing fleets, which will be important for preliminary analysis and graphical representation of the data, and especially for further development of any effort control system for demersal resources. The Secretariat proposed that this data be used to produce a preliminary "Atlas" of fishing fleets along the lines of the "Atlas of Fisheries of the Western and Central Mediterranean" published in 1985.

46. The Chairman noted that the need to develop a functioning management framework based on a control of fleet capacity and fishing effort has been agreed to at a number of meetings in the region over the last 4 years, both of the Council and its bodies, and by two Diplomatic Conferences (Crete and Venice) in recent years. This issue was addressed by the last Council at Alicante in 1995 on the basis of a proposed phasing of actions over the short- to medium-term in document GFCM/XXI/95/6, entitled: "Effort limitation and guideline for an effort-based management system". This last document formed the basis after revision for document GFCM:CFM/97/3 presented at the current meeting, entitled "Strategies and mechanisms for fisheries management in the GFCM Area". This has also focused principally on a phased approach to a control of fishing capacity, and eventually of fishing effort. The Chairman also noted that Member countries needed to consider the relevance of the different legal instruments now available to the management of Mediterranean resources; notably the Code of Conduct, the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and the Compliance Agreement. The latter two instruments needed to be ratified by Mediterranean countries, and would need more signatures before entering into force. The Chairman added that the two instruments have many useful features which could be incorporated into a fisheries management framework, even if some countries may have problems with formal ratification.

47. The Secretary was requested to send a reminder to Member countries together with the background documentation and other related information, urging them to provide the data by the above deadline. In the case of Western Mediterranean States, the collection of this data could be facilitated through the COPEMED project. The whole data set should then be submitted in tabular form to the Secretary and brought before the next Council in a suitable summarized form.

48. Questions were raised as to the relevance of the effort control system for different types of resources. It was noted that GFCM has been placing a priority on large pelagic and demersal resources which were most heavily exploited, and that management action on small pelagics was for the moment less urgent, with the exception of anchovy stocks, whose decline in most areas of the Mediterranean still remained unexplained. With respect to the large pelagics stocks, management appeared to require a regional focus, while for demersal resources, boundary areas where the shelf extends beyond national waters appeared to merit principal attention by those States exploiting their resources.

49. The Secretariat introduced this Agenda Item on the basis of document GFCM/CFM/97/4 Amendments to the GFCM Agreement and draft document Possible Scale of Contributions. It was pointed out that five main issues were addressed: Amendments to provide for the admission of the EC to the Council, establishment of a Scientific Committee, modifications to the preamble to the Agreement to take into account appropriate international instruments, Dispute Settlement procedures, the inclusion of Aquaculture in the mandate of the Council, and the Autonomous Budget and Scale of Contributions.

50. In addition, the Secretariat recalled that the proposed amendments expressed the spirit and intentions of the Twenty-first Session of the Council which was held in Alicante in May 1995, the Diplomatic Conference at Venice in November 1996 and the Workshop on the Legal and Technical Aspects of Fisheries Management in the Mediterranean held in Montpellier in April 1997 at the initiative of the European Community. The Secretariat stressed that seeking the views of the Committee on this matter was in a purely advisory capacity, because the power to decide is vested in the GFCM Council. However, the views of the Committee would permit the Secretariat to prepare a more consistent document that could be more easily considered by the GFCM Council at its Twenty-second Session in October 1997.

51. The Secretariat also informed the Committee that the draft document on the scale of contributions was merely presented for information. The Secretariat would, however, welcome any comments on the document and requested delegations to discuss the contents of that document with the competent authorities in order to facilitate discussion on the matter at the Twenty-second Session of the Council.

52. Some delegations expressed the view that it was premature for the Committee to discuss amendments to the Agreement and Rules of Procedure of GFCM dealing with the relationship between the GFCM and FAO because the FAO Council, at its One hundred and twelfth Session, while endorsing the recommendations of the preliminary Review of FAO Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts undertaken by FAO, had empowered the Contact Group set up by the Joint Programme and Finance Committee to review in detail the justification for a number of FAO Commissions, Expert Committees and Panels. In this their view, any recommendations made by the Committee might prejudge the deliberations of the Contact Group.

53. In this context, the Secretariat explained that the amendments regarding the relationship of GFCM with FAO, and in particular those contained in Articles II 13 and X 1 and 3 as set out in Annex A of the document, reflected the present "Principles and procedures which should govern Conventions and Agreements concluded under Articles XIV and XV of the Constitution, and Commissions and Committees Established under Article VI of the Constitution", as amended by the FAO Conference in 1991, which were binding until amended by the Conference.

54. The Committee also took note of the recommendations of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI), at its Twenty-second Session held in March 1997, which had strongly endorsed the need for effective regional fishery organizations and arrangements, within the framework of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, if fish stocks were to be managed in a sustainable and responsible manner. The FAO Council at its One hundred and twelfth Session had adopted the Report of the Twenty-second Session of COFI and had particularly stressed that FAO regional fishery bodies should be reviewed by their respective members on a case by case basis with a view to strengthening each body, as appropriate.

55. The Committee in general noted the urgency for these amendments to be discussed and adopted by the GFCM Council to enable the admission of the EC. This will give GFCM greater autonomy and permit GFCM to play a more efficient role in the management of fishery resources of the region, especially the shared and transboundary stocks. It was reiterated that if this could not be accomplished at the Twenty-second Session of GFCM in October 1997, then the process would have to wait for another two years.

56. Several delegations noted that the need to strengthen GFCM had been stressed in the Venice Declaration and reconfirmed at the Workshop on Legal and Technical Aspects of Fisheries Management in the Mediterranean, held at Montpellier in April 1997, at which all Members of GFCM participated.

57. The Committee noted that its role was consultative and advisory to the GFCM Council. Its deliberations on the proposed amendments should not therefore be considered in any way as negotiations, but merely as an exchange of views on the text that could aid the Secretariat in preparing a new text and could assist the GFCM Council in considering the amendments in October. Any recommendations emanating from the Contact Group and the discussions of the Programme and Finance Committees and the discussions on the relationship issue could be made available to the GFCM Council at that time. The Committee further noted that any amendments adopted by GFCM in October would have to be submitted for approval to the FAO Council in November, or if the Council so decided, could be referred to the FAO Conference for approval. This would give a further opportunity for the Governing Bodies of FAO to ensure that the amendments would be in line with the Basic Texts of FAO and any new policies adopted regarding the relationship issue.

58. In considering amendments to the Agreement and Rules of Procedure of GFCM, as submitted and discussed at the Twenty-first Session of the Council at Alicante in 1995, a delegation requested supplementary information on the competence of the EC as detailed in Article II and expressed certain reservations on Amendmens on Article X as well as on introduction of an autonomous budget.

59. The observer from the EC informed the Committee that the EC had exclusive competence for matters related to conservation and management, but for the rest there was mixed competence.

60. Some delegations asked that Article XVII "Certification and Registration" be amended to include Arabic, as there were presently seven Members of GFCM whose official language is Arabic.

61. The Committee expressed the view that the Scientific Committee was necessary, but that the composition of membership, as well as the need for other time bound, task-oriented structures such as Working Groups, would have to be discussed by the GFCM Council in October. It was also agreed that the establishment of any subsidiary bodies would depend on budgetary provisions being made to cover the cost.

62. The Committee noted the information provided on the proposed Autonomous Budget and Scale of Contributions. It reiterated that GFCM needed to obtain the necessary financial means that would enable it to act in an efficient manner despite the budgetary restrictions in FAO. The Committee recalled that, at the Montpellier Workshop, the Secretariat was requested to present for the forthcoming meetings of the Council a draft Programme of Work, including proposals for the necessary modifications of the legal texts in view of its implementation, precise budgetary estimates and scenarios regarding the amount of financial contributions of each member. The Committee requested the Secretariat to review the draft document on the Scale of Contributions and align it with a proposed detailed two-year Programme of Work. The Secretariat was further requested to also present a medium and long-term Programme of Work for the GFCM.

63. A number of delegations formulated suggestions for consideration and possible inclusion in the Agreement, which concerned: the need to make actual provision for membership of a regional economic integration organization in addition to the voting arrangements once it is a member, a statement on the position of non signatories to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, the change in the title of the paper to reflect the fact that the Agreement and the Rules of procedure were juridically distinct as regards their amendment, that the supply of scientific data was primarily a national responsibility rather than one for the proposed scientific committee, the desirability of retaining the original wording of Article III (Functions) of the Agreement, while including a reference to aquaculture, that the reference to aquaculture should emphasize its sustainable development, the need to add other criteria such as reliance on the best scientific evidence available, and the objectives of promoting development and proper utilization of the marine living resources, in addition to referring to the precautionary approach applied as appropriate, the desirability that the provision concerning voting rights should be stricter than in paragraph 8 of Article XIII of the IOTC Agreement (arrears in payment of financial contribution), and the possibility of placing a restriction on membership of GFCM similar to that contained in the IOTC Agreement (which limits membership to coastal states and to those fishing in the region). The delegate of EC noted that there is a need to harmonize the different versions of the GFCM Agreement with the original text.

64. The delegate of Turkey informed the Committee that an Agreement for the set-up of a Black Sea Fisheries Commission is being finalized. He pointed out that there should be a need to reconsider the GFCM role in this subregion accordingly. He also remarked that it would be incorrect, in the light of the above, that catches from the Black Sea be included as a basis for contribution in the GFCM budget by the Black Sea states.

65. The Japanese delegate requested the Secretariat to ensure that all Members would be aware of the new obligations that the proposed amendements to the Agreement will involve to them and that the amendments on introduction of an autonomous budget should enter into force with respect to all Members simultaneously.

66. The Committee stressed that documents, including other documents for the Twenty-second Session of the Council, should be sent to Members of GFCM before the summer vacation in order that the appropriate authorities could study them before the October meeting.

67. A document prepared by Greenpeace and endorsed by WWF was presented by the representation of WWF. The paper outlined specific proposals for amendments to the Agreement and stressed, among other things, the need to strengthen the powers of GFCM to adopt binding management measures, the need to cite specific and relevant international agreements in the preamble of the GFCM Agreement, the need for the GFCM Agreement to reflect the provisions of these international Agreements, the need to ensure environmentally sound aquaculture practices in Article III. The WWF delegation also requested that the Agreement ensures participation of NGOs and affected communities, and include provisions ensuring transparency and timely access to information.

68. The Secretariat thanked the Committee for its constructive contributions and assured the Committee that the suggestions made will be taken into account. The Committee was informed that documents for the Twenty-second Session of GFCM will be despatched to Members by the 15 July 1997.

69. The Secretariat introduced document GFCM:CFM/97/5 which reported on progress on implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and other international instruments. Although the Code was developed at the global level, it was emphasized that implementation can be best effected at the regional level and for the Mediterranean there would be an important role for a strengthened GFCM in producing regional guidelines reflecting the specifics of Mediterranean fisheries. Member States were urged to accept the Compliance Agreement which was an integral part of the Code.

70. Algeria, Egypt, France, Italy, Japan, Malta, Morocco and Spain all expressed support for the Code and reported on measures taken for its implementation in their respective countries. The need for publishing the Code widely among all concerned with fisheries was emphasized, as was the requirement for translation of the Code into other languages which were used at the fishing community level. Several meetings have already been organized at national and local levels with researchers, fishers and other segments of the industry to promote implementation of the Code. Other meetings were planned, including a conference in Spain on responsible trade for which the participation of representatives of member countries was welcomed.

71. Most of the delegations stressed the importance of involving directly fishers organizations in the promotion of the implementation of the Code, inter-alia, to ensure that the socio-economic specifics of Mediterranean fisheries, particularly the importance of the small-scale and coastal sub-sector were duly taken into consideration. Several member States reported that they were enhancing fisheries management and protecting aquatic ecosystems by strengthening research and introducing measures such as limiting vessel licensing, closed areas and closed seasons, and are in some cases being implemented voluntarily by the fishers. Some Members mentioned the special definition of the high seas as applicable to the Mediterranean Sea. The European Community informed the Committee of its adhesion to the Compliance Agreement and recalled that many of the principles and objectives of the Code, such as the precautionary principle and the control of fishing capacity, were largely integrated in the EU Common Fishery Policy. The Japanese delegate stated that Japan was proceeding with internal arrangements to ratify the Compliance Agreement as soon as possible.

72. The Italian delegate reported that the Code has been translated into Italian and widely distributed to fishermen and he stated that Italy applied the Code of Conduct'principles in its new legislation related to towed hydraulic dredging and to its voluntary plan for the reconversion of the large-scale driftnets. He finally declared that Italy was preparing a proposal to fund three components of the FAO Interregional Programme of Assistance to Developing Countries for implementation of the Code of Conduct relating to (1) monitoring, control and surveillance, (2) responsible fishing operations and (3) post-harvest practices and trade.

73. The Committee welcomed this proposal and stated that it would be desirable to integrate these components with others, funded by Norway and the Netherlands, to form a single comprehensive Programme.

74. The delegate of Spain requested information from the Secretariat concerning the follow-up action to the Recommendation of the Ninth Session of the Committee on Fisheries Management (1995) about the preparation of a report on the driftnets in the Mediterranean based on data provided by GFCM Member countries. The Secretariat indicated that a report on the subject was prepared by FAO for the UN General Assembly. The delegate of Spain reiterated that such a report should be based on information provided by Member countries. A copy of this FAO report has been distributed to the Committee. The delegates expressed the wish to make available at the next session of the Council in October 1997, the report on the situation of driftnets in the Mediterranean. WWF urged that the report requested by the Ninth Session should be as up-to-date as possible.

75. The Committee agreed that the formulation of a regional strategy for the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries together with the elaboration of regional guidelines should be one of the priorities of GFCM.

76. The Secretariat introduced document GFCM:CFM/97/6 and stressed the fact that, while the two meetings (the Second Session of the GFCM Working Party on Fishery Economics and Statistics and the Twenty-second Session of GFCM) scheduled for the second half of this year should not be affected by the reaction of the next Session of the Council to the proposal by the Secretariat for the restructuring of the Council and the amendment of its Basic Texts, the rest of the activities proposed for the biennium 1998/99 may be altered in the light of the decisions of the next session of GFCM.

77. The Secretariat also mentioned that the proposed programme of work will clearly depend on the financial resources made available to the Secretariat by both FAO and the Member Countries.

78. The delegates of Spain, France and Morocco stated that the Committee can only take note of the proposed Programme and await the outcome of the next session of GFCM. The delegate of France expressed regret that the Working Group on Fisheries Statistics and Economics, scheduled for September 1997, could not be held before the meeting of the Committee.

79. Without prejudice to the Council's deliberations on this matter, the Committee agreed on the Programme of Work, as described in document GFCM/CFM/97/6.

80. The Director of the COPEMED Project was requested to present his project's programme of work for the next biennium.

81. The following major activities were proposed:

82. The Committee expressed its agreement with the COPEMED project activities proposal.

83. The Secretariat informed the Committee that Israel had sent a letter requesting that the issue of endangered species be included in the Agenda of the Committee. The issue was brought up for discussion by the Chairman, but there was no reaction.

84. The delegate from Greenpeace International presented a joint statement prepared on behalf of Greeenpeace International and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The statement stressed the urgent need to create an effective fisheries management system in the Mediterranean and placed great importance and faith in the role of GFCM in establishing and coordinating this system. It stated, however, that little concrete progress has been achieved since the first Diplomatic Conference held in 1994 in Crete and many crucial issues still needed to be properly addressed by GFCM members in line with the Council Resolutions and recent international agreements.

85. The report was adopted on 20 June 1997.