FUTURE DIRECTION OF APFIC

19. The Commission discussed the above agenda item on the basis of documents APFIC/CM/01/3-6. It concurred with the view of the Executive Committee that there was a need to strengthen regional cooperation in the implementation of global fisheries instruments and initiatives, including the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries as agreed upon by the FAO Ministerial Meeting on Fisheries (Rome, March 1999). It also concurred that there was a need for regular consultation and coordination amongst the key organizations in the region to avoid the duplication of effort and to contribute to the rational use of the limited funds available to the fisheries sector.

20. The Commission agreed that APFIC had contributed during its 52 years of existence to the conservation and rational utilization of fishery resources in the Asia-Pacific region. However, its future remains uncertain due to a number of factors, including financial implications and issues relating to Resolution 13/97 adopted by the FAO Conference at its Twenty-ninth Session (Rome, November 1997).

21. The Secretariat advised the Commission that FAO would continue to provide necessary support to the APFIC Secretariat in carrying out its functions, but there would be no prospect for increasing this level of support in the foreseeable future. It was stressed that APFIC belongs to its Members and that FAO serves only as a facilitator and coordinator. It was further emphasized that, being an Article XIV body, APFIC has a considerable degree of independence from FAO, including the ability of the Commission to have an autonomous budget and an independent Secretariat, as well as the establishment of trust funds for its programmes of work. The Secretariat cautioned, however, that in its current form, the limitations on the Commission’s activities might raise the issue of the adequacy of its status as a body set up under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution.

22. The Secretariat elaborated on the international character of Article XIV Agreements and referred to in Part R of the FAO Basic Texts, which states that agreements entered into under the aegis of Article XIV are intended to be full international agreements. This entailed financial or other obligations from the Members, going beyond those already assumed under the Regular Programme of FAO. Should this not be the case, there would be “no grounds for such an agreement, at least not in the legal form prescribed under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution”. In this context, it would be assumed that the Members of APFIC should take up specific obligations, going beyond mere participation in the work of the body thus established. As to the financial obligations to enable the effective implementation of the Commission’s mandate, contributions by Members are required in cash or in kind. Contributions in kind could include expenses such as hosting or participating in a session of the Commission and/or conducting research or development activities as recommended by the Commission.

23. It was further explained that Resolution 13/97 invited inter alia the regional bodies created under Article XIV “to seek where appropriate, increasingly to provide such bodies with their own financial resources, whether through co-operative programmes or voluntary contributions, or through the establishment of autonomous budgets financed from mandatory contributions”. As FAO would not be able to provide increased financial support for the Commission, there was a need for increased contributions by its Members either under the form of mandatory annual contributions or otherwise. In this respect, it would not be appropriate to maintain the status quo of the Commission.

24. In the light of the above, the Commission proceeded to consider four possible options for the future direction of APFIC, presented in document APFIC/CM/01/6, based on the report of the ad hoc Legal and Financial Working Group, viz., (i) maintaining the status quo; (ii) implementing collaborative research and/or development initiatives; (iii) assuming the role of a regional consultative body as the Commission’s main activity; and (iv) assuming the role of a regional fisheries management organization.

Option 1. Maintaining the status quo

25. It was noted that this option might have legal implications for the Commission which was established under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution as stated earlier. Furthermore, the Commission would be limited in its ability to provide assistance to its Members in enhancing fisheries sustainability, through the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Out of the 18 Members represented at this Session, 13 Members expressed preference for this option, but with the proviso that there would be no mandatory financial contributions from the Members.

26. Some Members questioned whether under this option, APFIC continue to exist as an Article XIV body. It was clarified that, in the light of Resolution 13/97 of the FAO Conference in 1997 and Part R of the Basic Text of FAO and because APFIC belongs to its Members, the Member States of APFIC are required to seriously consider the possibility of providing contributions to the Commission, either in cash or in kind, whether in the form of mandatory annual contribution or contributions to Trust Fund for specific activities.

Option 2. Implementing collaborative research and/or development initiatives

27. The Commission noted that many of the high priority programmes of activities it endorsed at its 1998 session could be implemented through collaborative efforts. These included the collection, collation and dissemination of fishery information and statistical data; a fisheries management framework in the Bay of Bengal, and assessment of fish stocks and trends in production. It also noted that this option would enhance APFIC’s ability to help strengthen national capacity building and transfer of technology in sustainable fisheries management and development. This option, however, would require financial and human resource contribution from participating Members and was supported by six Member States.

Option 3. APFIC assuming the role of a regional consultative forum

28. In such a role, APFIC could act as a forum to discuss emerging issues relating to fisheries, trade and sustainable management facing the member countries. It was also noted that this option could enhance dialogue and international cooperation and coordination amongst regional fishery bodies and prospective donors, so that the opportunities and challenges in fisheries sustainability in the region could be given due visibility. Eleven Members were in favour of this option as a future role of the Commission.

Option 4. APFIC as a regional fisheries management organization (RFMO)

29. The Commission considered the option for APFIC to become a truly regional fisheries management organization and concluded that it would create a number of difficulties as extensive amendments to the present agreement would be required. These would include the area of competence, specific unit stocks to be managed and funding mechanism for the organization’s activities. In such a case, mandatory contributions would be required from the participating Member States as in the cases of a number of regional fishery bodies recently established or soon-to-be established within or outside the FAO umbrella. Six Members were explicitly not in favour of this option; one Member, however, considered this as a possible long-term transformation of the Commission.

30. The summary of the Members’ positions on the above options with regards to the future direction of APFIC is given in Appendix D.

31. One Member mentioned that APFIC has already implemented the first three options to some degree. Some Members suggested that these options could be developed further with support from external funding, together with in-kind support from host countries and urged the Commission to pursue this matter further.

32. The Commission agreed that notwithstanding its financial uncertainty:

1. APFIC should continue to function;

2. APFIC should have more focussed and well defined programmes of action that are responsive to the needs of its Members;

3. APFIC could implement cooperative research and development initiatives;

4. APFIC could assume the role of a consultative forum; and

5. There is a need for continued support for capacity building and transfer of technology in sustainable fisheries management and development for both marine and inland fisheries.

34. The Commission agreed that the provisions as stipulated in the APFIC Agreement remained valid, therefore, no amendments to the Agreement were required at this stage.