APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A. AGENDA

1. Opening of the Session

2. Adoption of the Agenda and Arrangements for the Session

3. Introductory Statement by the Chairperson

4. The Role of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research and its achievements - 1997-2002

5. World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 and its Implications for Fisheries

6. Identification of Other Priority Issues

7. Future Work of the Committee

8. Election of Officers

9. Date and place of the Fifth Session

10. Any other matters

11. Adoption of the Report

APPENDIX B. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Rognvaldur Hannesson
Professor
Centre for Fisheries Economics
The Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration
Helleveien 30
N-5045 Bergen
Norway
Tel: +47 55.959260
Fax: +47 55.959543
Email: [email protected]

Hassanai Kongkeo
Special Advisor
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA)
Suraswadi Building
Department of Fisheries
Kasetsart University Campus
Ladyao Jatujak
Bangkok 10903
Thailand
Tel: +66.25611728-9 (Office)
Tel: +66.2.2412500 (Home)
Fax: +66.2.5611727 (Office)
Fax: +66.2.6690897 (Home)
E-mail: [email protected]

Kwame A. Koranteng
Director
Marine Fisheries Research Division
P.O. Box BT-62
Tema
Ghana
Tel: +233 22208048/202346
Fax: +233 22203066
Email: [email protected]

John Kurien
Professor
Centre for Development Studies
Ulloor
Thiruvananthapuram 695 011
Kerala
India
Tel: +91.471.446989(home)
Tel: +91.471.448881 (office)
Fax: +91.471.447137
Email: [email protected]

Miguel Petrere
UNESP
Department of Ecology
P.O. box 199
13506-900 Rio Claro (Sao Paulo)
Brazil
Tel: +55 19 352604145/46
Fax: +55 19 35349905
Email: [email protected]

Gudrun Petursdottir
Director
Fisheries Research Institute
University of Iceland
Taeknigardur
Dunhagi 5
IS-107 Reykjavik
Iceland
Tel. +354 5254056
Fax. +354 5255829
Email: [email protected]

Michael Sissenwine
Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
166 Water Street
Woods Hole, MA025403
United States of America
Tel: +1.508.495.2233
Fax: +1.508.495.2232
Email: [email protected]

Meryl J. Williams
Director General
World Fish Center
P.O. Box 500650
10670 Penang
Malaysia
Tel. +60 4 6261606
Fax. +60 4 6265690
Email: m.[email protected]

SECRETARIAT

B.P. Satia
Chief, International Institutions and Liaison Service, FIPL
Secretary of ACFR
Tel. 0039 06 57052847
Fax. 0039 06 57056500
E-mail: [email protected]

Anne-Marie DeFendi
Secretary, International Institutions and Liaison Service, FIPL

FAO FISHERIES DEPARTMENT

Ichiro Nomura
Assistant Director-General
Fisheries Department

S. M. Garcia
Director
Fishery Resources Division

J-F. Pulvénis de Séligny
Director
Fishery Policy and Planning Division

G. Valdimarsson
Director
Fishery Industries Division

A. Bonzon
Senior Fishery Liaison Officer
International Institutions and Liaison Service
Fishery Policy and Planning Division

T. Bostock
Executive Secretary
Support Unit for International Fisheries and Aquatic Research (SIFAR)

J. Csirke
Chief
Marine Resources Service

R. Grainger
Chief
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit

J. Jia
Chief
Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service

H. Josupeit
Fishery Industry Officer
Fish Utilization and Marketing Service
Fishery Industries Division

P. Manning
Coordinator, ACP Fish II Feasibility Study
Support Unit for International Fisheries and Aquatic Research (SIFAR)

R. Pepe
Fishery Information Officer
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit

J. Prado
Fishery Industry Officer (Selectivity)
Fishing Technology Service
Fishery Industries Division

E. Reynolds
FishCode Programme Coordinator
Fishery Policy and Planning Division

R. Shotton
Senior Fishery Resources Officer
Marine Resources Service
Fishery Resources Division

A. Smith
Fishery Industry Officer (Fishing Gears)
Fishing Technology Service
Fishery Industries Division

D Staples
Visiting Scientist
Fishery Resources Division

U. Tietze
Fishery Industries Officer (Small-Scale Fisheries Credit)
Fishing Technology Service
Fishery Industries Division

J. Turner
Chief
Fishing Technology Service

R. Willmann
Senior Fishery Planning Officer
Fishery Policy and Planning Division

APPENDIX C. LIST OF DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX D. OPENING STATEMENT BY MR ICHIRO NOMURA ASSISTANT DIRECTOR-GENERAL, FAO FISHERIES DEPARTMENT

Mr Chairman and Members of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research,

I am pleased to welcome you, on behalf of the Director-General of FAO, Dr Jacques Diouf, to this Fourth Session of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (ACFR). I also wish to take this opportunity to formally congratulate you on your appointment to the Committee by the Director-General. You have been selected on the basis of your specialized knowledge for the purpose of giving advice on capture fisheries and aquaculture research. Although your Committee is numerically small, consisting of only eight Members, selection has been made to include the widest possible subject matter and geographical representation.

You have before you a lean but rich agenda. The two substantive items, for this session are a review of the role and achievements of your Committee during the past five years and the implications of the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in August/September 2002, for fisheries research and the work of the FAO Fisheries Department.

It is my expectation that, in reviewing these two issues, and interacting among yourself and the Fisheries Department staff, you will further identify a number of research areas of particular importance in international fisheries for which the Fisheries Department should be concerned, including critical research gaps as well as emerging issues.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

At its First Session, your Committee agreed on its modus operandi and made an extensive review of the world fisheries environment. The Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research has also instituted a continuing consideration of key research topics, already identified research issues - both critical gaps and emerging issues - that need further consideration. In addition, the Committee gave the Fisheries Department the opportunity to present the scope and extent of its capture fisheries and aquaculture research-related work for scrutiny by the Committee and has set in train a programme of activities that has resulted in a number of initiatives.

The information set in one of the main documents for this Session, summarizes these achievements. However, the secretariat has not attempted to evaluate the scope of research recommendations, the effect of these recommendations on the work programme or the pace of progress. It is anticipated that your Committee will undertake this evaluation through an interactive process with the Fisheries Department staff.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 agreed on the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. The Plan treated issues related to fisheries extensively. More emphasis was implicitly placed on marine capture fisheries, but the Plan also stressed the importance of aquaculture development and small-scale fisheries. Equally important, the Plan stressed the importance of the efficient use of water and alluded to the need for greater emphasis to be placed on the issues of biodiversity.

The role of FAO was expressly recognized in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and reference was made to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and its related International Plans of Action and Guidelines. The Plan ratified and built on commitments defined in Agenda 21 as well as the decisions adopted by the FAO Committee on Fisheries, taking into account achievements already reached in their implementation.

Specific deadlines were agreed on five issues:

• the development and implementation of national and regional plans of action to put into effect the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU) by 2004;
  
  
• the elaboration of national and regional plans on the IPOA-Capacity by 2005;
  
  
• the establishment of “representative networks” of marine protected areas by 2012;
  
  
• the application of ecosystem approach by 2010; and
  
  
• the restoration of depleted stocks by 2015.

In addition, the Plan also makes reference to many other issues that have direct relevance to the Fisheries Department’s work programme, including work towards:

• the elimination of subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to over-capacity;
  
  
• support for the sustainable development of aquaculture, including small-scale aquaculture;
  
  
• protection of the marine environment from land-based activities; and
  
  
• building capacity in marine science, information and management.

Your advice on how to operationalize the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation into the research-related work of the Fisheries Department will be most welcomed.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you are aware, the purpose of carrying out fisheries research is for it to be used to make positive changes and adjustments in the fisheries sector. This might appear so obvious as not to be worth saying were it not for the fact that, all too often, the results of fisheries research are not used. I hope that, in your discussions, you will look into these issues and, in so doing, will focus particularly your attention on the situation of developing countries, due to the magnitude of the problems these countries are facing in this field, and their deficit in terms of an adequate machinery to undertake fisheries research and ensure the rational use of its results.

I would like to assure you that the Organization will continue to support the Fisheries Department in the conduct of studies to address items of special importance and other issues on which priority advice will be given by your Committee.

Both for myself and the staff of the Fisheries Department, I wish you a constructive and useful Session.

Thank you.

APPENDIX E. MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

A fundamental question to be asked before establishing an MPA is what objectives are to be realized. MPAs can be useful for two broad goals: (i) protecting species or habitats, and (ii) enhancing yields in fisheries. Both of these need not be accomplished simultaneously. Species or habitat protection may be attained at some expense in fish yield. Clarifying what one wants to achieve would make any necessary tradeoff between these goals more explicit and transparent.

MPAs could be useful to attain a number of fisheries goals, such as:

• Protect fish species from extinction.
  
  
• Protect the fishery in order to maintain peoples’ livelihood (yield enhancement).
  
  
• Protect local concentrations of fish such as the sanctuaries to protect the tuna in the Gulf of Taranto in the Mediterranean.

The effects of establishing an MPA can be investigated by means of quantitative models with the appropriate temporal and spatial resolution. The yield enhancement effect of MPAs depend critically on (i) the migrations of fish between the MPAs and their surroundings where fishing is allowed, and (ii) the response of the industry to MPAs. The yield enhancement effect will be negligible or negative if fish move rapidly or very slowly between the MPA and its surroundings. Rather than reducing the overall fishing pressure, an MPA may simply redistribute fishing effort, presumably at some cost to the industry, and so have negligible or even negative economic effect on the industry.

MPAs are particularly likely to result in yield enhancement if they protect spawning or nursery grounds. This calls for models that explicitly consider spatial distribution and migratory routes of fish.

Depending on the goals to be achieved by an MPA and the effects predicted to result, it needs to be considered whether the MPA is to be closed to all fishing at all times or open for some species, gear types, or for some part of the year. Allowing a partial opening may reduce the possible adverse effects on the industry while permitting an acceptable realization of conservation goals.

Having established a case for putting in place an MPA the effects thereof need to be monitored and contrasted with the expected and desired effects. Particular attention must be paid to regime shifts in the ocean due to temperature anomalies or other oceanographic changes that may require modifications or spacial and/or temporal shifting of an MPA.

Given the likely conflict between the objectives of species preservation and fish yield, the question who decides whether, where and how large an MPA is to be established, is crucial. In tropical ecosystems, where resources are largely concentrated close to the shore, any type of MPA will necessary affect the access of coastal communities to resources. The economic, social and political dimension of this needed to be considered.

APPENDIX F. ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO FISHERIES AND 2012 MILESTONE IN WSSD PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION

The Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research discussed the WSSD Plan of Implementation Paragraph 31© concerning the use of diverse aquatic resource management approaches and tools by 2012. The Committee noted that FAO had led the development of guidelines and principles for the ecosystem approach to fisheries and concluded that FAO and key partners should take a lead in developing new scientific tools, training courses and materials and working with national, regional and other management partners to support progress towards this milestone.

The following programmes of work should be developed, with the involvement of key ACFR members and partners agencies such as NACA, WorldFish Center and others.

• Under the guidance of a small steering committee, form cross-disciplinary teams to conduct case studies for a range of fisheries in developing and developed countries to learn how the ecosystem approach to fisheries can be used in practice, to help build capacity to use such approaches in different fisheries and to further develop the use of the approach.
  
  
• Using the case studies and other experience, build a toolbox of scientific and management approaches for the ecosystem approach, including such tools as rapid appraisals, participatory research and data gathering, conflict resolution tools, integrated resource management training, community-based and co-management, information sources, monitoring, evaluation and feedback tools.
  
  
• To support countries and resource management institutions to achieve the 2012 target, disseminate the lessons of the case studies, and make the toolbox open, accessible and a source of knowledge and teaching, through use of appropriate face to face and information technology means.

Further background information is provided in Paragraphs 58 to 61.