57. The Committee identified the following major priority issues which merited consideration by the international community.
58. As a high priority issue, the Committee agreed on the need to focus more directly on building human capacity, especially with respect to meeting the targets set by WSSD in the areas of global reporting and assessment of the state of the environment by 2004, implementing the IPOAs (fishing capacity by 2005 and IUU fishing by 2004), applying the ecosystem approach by 2012 and maintaining or restoring fish stocks by 2015. The Committee felt that past models for delivering on this urgent need (i.e. formal training provided by experts from developed countries to developing countries) would also need to change to accommodate the newer approach to fisheries issues and fisheries management. It would need to be based on a more mutual learning process so that information and knowledge could be shared more efficiently and effectively by all involved. Human capacity would need to be built not just for science but also for management and among stakeholders.
59. While recognizing that FAO Fisheries Department was already doing a lot of work in this area, the Committee felt that a more strategic approach was needed to:
60. The Committee noted that there was a range of possible development assistance agencies that would be interested in the development of such a “strategy” as well as a range of models (e.g. the network of information exchange developed by NACA) that could assist in the development of the strategy.
61. The Committee recommended that the idea for the development of a human capacity building strategy for fisheries, particularly fishery research, should be highlighted by the Fisheries Department at the Twenty-fifth Session of COFI. The Committee indicated the process by which such a strategy could be established to include:
The Committee noted that some of the required actions for the development of the strategy were already being implemented through a range of activities by the Fisheries Department.
62. The Committee reiterated that small-scale fisheries in marine, brackish and freshwater environments had generally received less research attention relative to other sectors than merited by their relative contribution to nutrition, food security, sustainable livelihoods and poverty alleviation. It recalled that at its first session the importance of inland and small-scale coastal fisheries was emphasized and an agenda brief was elaborated on this subject. The Committee pointed out that in a number of instances where countries have elaborated poverty reduction strategy papers, the role of the fisheries sector had not been sufficiently considered. In this regard the Committee welcomed the inclusion of small-scale fisheries as a stand-alone agenda item at the next session of COFI.
63. The Committee acknowledged that almost all aspects, such as user rights, excess capacity, IUU fishing, trade and incentives, governance, etc., which had been extensively addressed in large scale fisheries, were also important in small-scale fisheries but had not generally received explicit attention. The Committee further agreed that research should more effectively address the dynamics of the sector and in this regard recommended the establishment of an ACRF Working Party on Small-scale Marine Fisheries. In making this recommendation, it recognized that other small-scale fisheries sectors were also important, but felt that an effort to tackle all sectors together might not be practicable. The working party would elaborate a draft research agenda and undertake an evaluation of the role and importance of small-scale marine fisheries and outline ways in which the transition to responsible fisheries could be facilitated, bearing in mind the developing paradigm of EAF.
64. The Committee noted that marine fishing was the world’s most dangerous profession. There were many factors that make fishing a dangerous profession, such as the lack of rights which results in fishers racing to capture a share of fisheries without adequate attention to safety. Clearly, the loss of life and serious injuries associated with fishing were an important determinant of the quality of livelihoods of fishing communities. More attention should be given to understanding the factors that cause deaths and injuries and on reducing the risk involved.
65. The potential contribution of fisheries to national economic development was greater the less restricted was trade in fish and fish products. The caveat was that this required effective fisheries management. If this were not in place, trade could conceivably lead to depletion of fishery resources and increased poverty.
66. The Committee noted the evolution in thinking about the biological components of fisheries systems from single species to ecosystems. This evolution also included recognition of multiple harvesting sub-components (or fleets), and it acknowledged the diversity of human values and objectives for fisheries. However, rarely, if ever, is the complexity of global markets considered in an ecosystem context. The Committee stressed that markets and trade of fish and fish products was in a sense analogous to food webs and energy flow within the biotic component of fishery systems, and potentially, it was just as important in terms of conservation and sustainable livelihoods.
67. The Committee strongly recommended that FAO foster more research on trade in the context of fishery ecosystems. There was a need for research to understand how globalisation and free trade (or conversely, trade barriers) interact with conservation objectives, and wealth generation and distribution, both when fisheries are managed in a responsible manner, and when fisheries management was inadequate to sustain fisheries. The relationship between trade, fishing rights and performance of the fishery sector needed to be better understood, based on practical experience (it was not sufficient to rely on theory for such complex systems).
68. The Committee emphasized the need for more and better data on trade. The trade data that were generally available today were of limited value for considering trade in an ecosystem context because species and source (i.e., raw material and origin of fish products) were far too coarse to be matched up with other data about ecosystems.
69. While the Committee was well aware of the sensitive nature of trade data, it felt compelled to call for a global reporting scheme at least comparable to current international data collection systems for catches. Such data would be invaluable for research about trade in an ecosystem context, as well as supporting food safety needs and implementation of the IPOA on IUU fishing. Such a system would also make eco-labelling and listing of commercial fishery species under CITES less disruptive. The Committee noted that a number of RFMOs such as ICCAT and CCAMLR had in place mechanisms to ensure the traceability (catch certification and trade documentation) of fishery products. The Committee was informed that an economic integration organization had recently put in place a regulation on traceability. It noted however that at the consumer level precise information on the origin on fish and fishery products was generally difficult to obtain. The Committee suggested that the matter be brought to the attention of the COFI Subcommittee on Fish Trade.
70. The Committee expressed the opinion that there was a link between the WSSD recommendation for the restoration of fish stocks by 2015 and the traceability of fish products. It welcomed the steps being taken by FAO to encourage the World Customs Organization to improve custom classification codes for fish and fishery products, such that the information can be related to EAF.
71. Even without the additional data on trade called for in previous paragraph, the Committee recommended that priority be given to case studies to determine the impacts of trade and trade measures (either liberalisation or trade barriers) on conservation and livelihoods, particularly for small scale fisheries in developing countries.
72. The Committee felt that the FAO/MFA (Norway) study of international trade in fishery products, to be undertaken in 2003, was likely to improve understanding on the consequences of trade - who and what make the gains and losses, where and when do they accrue.
73. The Committee noted that the FAO/MFA (Norway) study would primarily analyse the positive and/or negative impacts of international fish trade on food security, including food availability and accessibility, employment, distribution of benefits and hard currency earnings. It was further noted that the study would affect the manner in which trade affected men and women differently as well as the relationship to sustainable management of fishery resources. It was pointed out that to achieve this, the study might consider focusing on five categories in the exporting and importing countries: the nation, the fishers, the fish workers, the fish consumers and the fish stocks.
74. The Committee was informed that the increased demand for fish and fishery products, coupled with technological developments in fish handling, preservation and distribution and the increasing awareness and demand of consumers for safe fish of high quality had led to major developments in the field of fishery product safety and quality, culminating in the adoption of HACCP based systems and scientifically based risk assessment methods. The Committee acknowledged that the overarching instrument for food safety was Codex Alimentarius, but that countries could adopt stricter criteria and this was perceived by some as a barrier to trade. It further acknowledged that compliance with such regulations was no guarantee that products will be competitive in international markets, given that some countries might have trade-distorting mechanisms (e.g. subsidies) in place.
75. The Committee noted that trade bans imposed for food safety reasons by major importing countries could have both positive and negative effects. Examples cited were Bangladesh and Lake Victoria riparian countries.
76. The Committee noted that ornamental fish trade was becoming an increasingly important enterprise. However, data on this industry was limited. It is known that some of the rare species that were most valuable in trade have been seriously depleted, and the threat of extinction existed and/or extinctions may have already occurred. Clearly more data and case studies were needed. This was another example where the implications of international trade needed to be considered in an ecosystem context.
77. The Committee noted that small scale aquaculture for ornamental fish could be beneficial in terms of reduced pressures for overharvesting ornamental species, while also contributing to sustainable livelihoods. However, the Committee cautioned that with respect to the culture of ornamental fishes for stock enhancement or restoration, it was essential to investigate the ecological and biodiversity issues.
