This Circular provides summary information on the role of international fishery organizations or arrangements and other bodies (Regional Fishery Bodies, “RFBs”) with regard to the conservation and management of living aquatic resources. It updates information in FAO Fisheries Circular No. 908, “Summary Information on the Role of International Fishery and Other Bodies with Regard to the Conservation and Management of Living Resources of the High Seas” prepared by Mr S.H. Marashi in 1996. It maintains the framework describing the establishment, area of competence, species, membership and main objectives and activities of each RFB. In addition, the scope of this document extends to the conservation and management of all living aquatic resources. It includes information on new bodies established since 1996, as well as bodies with competence over inland fisheries. Bodies that have ceased to exist since that time are not included.
This Circular also updates the table of summary information on each RFB (Appendix 1), and the contacts (Appendix 2). Updated information was provided by the RFBs in response to a questionnaire (Appendix 3), which also requested information on issues and activities of the RFB: (a) priority issues for the organization; (b) implementation of post-UNCED fishery instruments; and (c) activities, plans and priorities in relation to specific issues. Responses in relation to each of these areas are summarized in this Part, and details regarding implementation of post-UNCED fishery instruments and addressing specific issues appear in the framework under the relevant RFB.
The survey was undertaken for the purpose of identifying general trends. Responses to the questionnaire are indicative only, and are not quantified. They were provided by the secretariats without formal consideration by member countries, and a number of factors contribute to the general nature of the resposnes including the interrelationship of many of the issues leading to gaps or overlaps in information and the diversity of RFBs’mandates, funding, and membership. If an RFB did not indicate its attention to certain issues or activities in the survey, this may not indicate an absence of attention in its operations.
However, the responses do reflect trends in activities and issues that serve to indicate general priorities and challenges of RFBs at the time of writing. This overview is consistent with, and potentially useful for, a range of global initiatives being taken either among RFBs or between RFBs and other organizations. One such example is the joint FAO-UNEP initative to identify opportunities and challenges for coordination of ecosystem-based fisheries management between RFBs and Regional Seas Conventions.[1]
The updated information in this Circular was provided by the relevant organizations in response to the questionnaire. Where information was not received, the relevant entry for that RFB remains unchanged from Circular No. 908 as indicated.
An indicative map of RFBs’ areas of competence (Map 1) and the map of FAO Statistical Areas (Map 2) provide an overview for purposes of locating the areas of competence of RFBs. Separate maps, as available,[2] appear throughout the text showing specific areas of competence for the relevant RFB. Where an area of competence relates generally to FAO Statistical Areas, Map 2 serves as the reference and this is indicated in the text.
A range of issues and challenges have faced RFBs in recent years, including those relating to effective governance by the RFB and to the conservation and management of the resource. RFBs were requested to indicate the five most important issues for them, and the reasons why they are important. The responses generally fall into the following areas: management, science/research, institutional and development. A table showing the range of responses is in Appendix 4.
The issues identified as important to RFBs complement information requested in Parts B and C of the questionnaire, relating to the implementation of post-UNCED fishery instruments and addressing specific issues.[3] The information provides an indication of current trends and concerns; some issues were raised by only one RFB while others were cited by many. The Secretariats of twenty-nine RFBs responded, and while the information is indicative only - it was not formally considered by member countries - it reflects major concerns of each organization.
Because RFBs have varying mandates, membership and institutional arrangements, it would be inappropriate to quantify the number of RFBs that referred to a given issue; instead, this analysis will focus on general trends. Even though an RFB did not identify an issue as a priority, this does not necessarily mean that it views the issue as unimportant. The RFB may concur with the trends, providing scope for future cooperation and action.
Similarly, while RFBs have indicated some areas as priority issues, it should be appreciated that these areas may overlap with other issues. For example, an RFB may have indicated unreported catch as a priority issue, but it may also be taking action on related issues such as reviewing the control and enforcement programmes of member countries.[4] Work on the precautionary approach could cover all aspects of management, including habitat protection, social and economic aspects and other areas which may not be indicated in Appendix 4. Placing the results in tabular form may not readily convey this holistic situation, so this is another reason that this review, together with the Appendix, is presented as an indicative guideline on trends in priority issues at the time of writing. As noted above, these trends may assist in reaching a clearer understanding of the challenges facing RFBs.
Management and institutional issues were most often cited by RFBs as important for them, with strong concern shown regarding science/research. Some RFBs also referred to fisheries development issues. The responses in all categories are reviewed below. “Trends” are identified where two or more RFBs identified the same, or similar issues, and the heading “other concerns” relates to issues identified by a single RFB.
Map 1 - Indicative Areas of RFBs
I.2.1.1 Trends
Issues surrounding responsible fisheries management, the ecosystem approach, bycatch and IUU fishing were cited as important by the highest aggregation of RFBs. This is consistent with prominent issues in recent international instruments, which in turn responded to broad international concern.
Implementation of responsible fisheries management was described by one RFB[5] as including: holistic approaches encompassing multidisciplinary skills; a sound research base; upgrading less advanced countries to minimum standard level for managing shared stocks; membership of all riparian and long distant fishing nations; an enhanced decision making process to formulate binding decisions; and clarification of management objectives. Some RFBs noted this would include establishing management measures for sustainable fisheries including TACS, and effort control and other measures.[6] One RFB referred to difficulties in allocation of resources, and the need to determine principles for this purpose.[7]
Specific management concerns were raised by some RFBs, in the context of their mandate. This includes by area,[8] management scheme,[9] developing new management regimes,[10] and managing shared stocks[11] and certain species of fish.[12] One RFB referred to the more general problem of overfishing of commercially important species.[13]
Many RFBs expressed support for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. From a scientific perspective, ICES noted that today’s complex issues require integration of both fisheries and environmental information into useful advice.[14] In addition, other RFBs noted the need to understand the broader large marine ecosystem supporting the managed species,[15] the ecosystem effects of fishing,[16] and the general need for valuation and understanding of ecological processes.[17] Some other RFBs have added ecosystem concerns to their agendas or activities to monitor developments for management purposes.[18]
One RFB[19] placed a high priority on rational utilization of the fisheries resources, and another RFB[20] stated that its area of competence, a semi-enclosed sea, needs special care because it is affected by pollution from industrialized coastal States.
Bycatch is a concern to a number of RFBs.[21] Some organizations with a mandate over tuna noted the need for the control of bycatch,[22] one named use of shrimp fisheries bycatch reducing devices as a priority[23] and another referred to the fact that improved control over bycatch would be a positive development for the conservation of endangered species and biodiversity concerns.[24] The slow pace of scientific knowledge in this area was noted, and an observation was made that the development of a regulatory environment for bycatch management often proceeds at a rate greater than the research programs necessary to estimate the impact of bycatch on target/ancillary species.
IUU fishing was named by a number of RFBs as an important issue. Concern was expressed about the level of unreported catches[25] and extent and impact of IUU fishing.[26] One RFB attributes the unreporting in its area of competence to the fact that the vessels concerned are flagged in open registry countries.[27] However, under the threat of Port State control measures and trade documentation schemes, some of these countries are now cooperating with the Commission and providing some data. It is apparent that in most cases, however, they would most likely not apply management measures decided by the Commission.
Some RFBs report an ongoing focus on efficient control and enforcement.[28] For one RFB this involves the establishment of a VMS automated database, resulting in almost 100 percent coverage by automatic position messages.[29] In the same realm, some RFBs referred to coordination of the Parties’ enforcement activities as a priority issue.[30] One RFB named resource protection as an issue because control and surveillance is weak in the region and should be strengthened at a time when foreign vessels are increasingly fishing legally and illegally.[31]
Some RFBs referred to the application of the precautionary approach as an issue important to their work.[32] One has developed agreements in relation to application of the precautionary approach to management of fisheries resources and habitat protection and restoration under its competence.[33] As the next steps, it will consider the application of the precautionary approach to introductions and transfers, aquaculture and transgenics; and another RFB shares its concern about how social and economic factors can be taken into account in applying the precautionary approach without undermining its effectiveness.[34]
I.2.1.2 Other Concerns
One inland RFB referred to policy development for fisheries and aquaculture as a priority issue.[35]
Conflicts of interest at national level are a problem stated by one RFB.[36] Conflicts between the industry/environmental interest groups at national level leads to a reluctance to take specific management measures, although the principle behind these measures might have been adopted through ratification of overarching international instruments. It may also lead to a reluctance to monitor compliance through third party VMS or observer coverage.
The increasing capacity of the fishing fleets is a concern for one RFB within its area of competence, which noted that the fleet capacity should be controlled for conservation reasons.[37]
Pollution was raised by one RFB as an issue of management and conservation, and directly pertains to the consumption of marine resources.[38] The RFB is an important forum for discussing such issues. A closely related issue identified by another RFB is fish kill due to Red Tide and/or bacterial infection phenomena.[39]
Transboundary fishing is of concern to an RFB with a mandate for inland fisheries.[40]
Measures to minimize impacts of aquaculture, and introductions and transfers on the wild stocks is an important issue reported by one RFB.[41] The background to its concern is based on a dramatic increase of the production of farm salmon in recent years to more than 300 times the harvest of wild salmon. There are concerns about genetic, disease and parasite and other impacts of cultured fish on the wild stocks. There is increasing interest in introductions and transfers of species and increasing pressure to remove barriers to trade. Poorly planned introductions and transfers have had very damaging impacts on wild salmonids.
Managing conflicts between artisanal and industrial fisheries was flagged as a focal challenge by one RFB. A project will be prepared to help reduce or eliminate this problem.[42]
Urbanization and reclamation of nursery grounds for commercially imported species of fish and shrimp was cited by one RFB, due to the negative impact on recruitment of renewable resources.[43]
An RFB, being administered under interim arrangements until its Convention enters into force, cited difficulties in enforcement of interim measures contained in the Annex on Interim Arrangements to the Convention.[44]
I.2.2.1 Trends
A visionary springboard for the views expressed on science/research issues was described by one RFB as the need to “build a foundation for science”.[45] Such a foundation would have several purposes: to fulfil the need to better understand the physical, chemical and biological biological functioning of marine ecosystems; to understand and quantify human impacts on marine ecosystems, including living marine resources; and to evaluate options for sustainable marine-related industries, particularly fishing and mariculture.
Most RFBs centered their responses around practical issues, including producing scientific advice decision-makers need (including integrating fisheries and environmental information),[46] the need for continuing, accurate, comprehensive stock assessments,[47] and assessments of associated species and ecosystems at national and regional levels.[48] One RFB expressed a need for both resource evaluation and improved research and resource monitoring.[49] Another emphasized the problems for managers and decision makers and difficulty of adopting a precautionary approach because of a lack of specific knowledge on the status and abundance of stocks.[50]
Many RFBs were concerned about statistical databases. They pointed to the need for timely statistics and submission, collection and distribution of information.[51]
Another issue shared by some RFBs is the decline, restoration and recovery and conservation of certain fish stocks.[52]
I.2.2.2 Other Concerns
One RFB cited the evaluation of high seas fisheries as a priority,[53] another referred to factors affecting mortality of sea,[54] and an inland fisheries organization identified a survey its area of competence as important.[55] One RFB focused on a general Scientific Research Programme,[56] and another cited coordination of the Parties’ research activities.[57]
On a broader scale, one RFB called for cooperation on issues surrounding initiatives to list fish on CITES appendices[58] and another referred to administrative difficulties associated with international research and monitoring programmes.[59]
I.2.3.1 Trends
The greatest number of issues identified by RFBs in this survey fall within the institutional area. Of these, issues relating to finance and strengthened external cooperation are most prominent, with capacity building, information exchange and human resource development following closely. A wide range of other issues was also expressed.
A number of RFBs referred to strengthening regional cooperation and coordination among RFBs and with outside organizations,[60] including addressing international initiatives in FAO,[61] through open dialogue, and fostering partnerships.[62] In this context, one RFB emphasized that the issues identified as important by the RFBs should be disseminated to the relevant organizations on a reciprocal basis, and that the RFBs are informed about decisions taken in other bodies that requires response.[63] Others addressed their rationale for collaboration towards better use of scarce resources and avoidance of duplication.[64]
The importance of attendance at meetings of sister organizations to exchange information and build on their experience was cited by one new RF B currently with interim status, prior to entry into force of its Convention.[65]
And for one RFB, the work begins at home; the important issue was reported as fostering solidarity, political will and cooperation among members.[66]
Many RFBs strongly expressed a need for financial resources to execute their respective mandates,[67] and one RFB cited the method of determining financial contributions as an important issue under review.[68]
Some RFBs identified related financially-based issues, the need for capacity building/financial support for fisheries administrations in member States[69] An attendant problem for two RFBs is the wide diversity among its members in terms of development (social and economic), and a natural resource base.[70]
Linked to the financial and capacity issues is human resource development. One RFB is concerned about the lack of human resources in the RFB[71] and another is concerned about the need to develop a specialized human resource cadre in fisheries in member States to lessen the reliance on international and regional assistance, and to fulfil their own stewardship obligations in areas where there is no international or regional assistance.[72]
On the credit side, maintaining and increasing the added value of the Organization is important for one RFB.[73]
A different area of concern is information and communication. Information exchange among member States, between the member States and the organization,[74] its communication to decision-makers[75] and the public are of high priority to several RFBs.[76]
Some RFBs cited membership concerns as an important issue for them. This includes fishing by non-members,[77] and broadened participation in the RFB.[78]
I.2.3.2 Other Concerns
Institutional competence is an issue for some RFBs, in different contexts. One identified institutional uncertainty regarding the competence of RFBs to implement the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement.[79]
Another RFB was concerned about its mandate to address certain issues and its competence to determine the legal status of reservations to the Schedule to its Convention.[80]
One RFB, observing that many RFBs are not established as management bodies, stated that without proper authority from its members, it is not possible to provide effective governance as demanded by recent global initiatives/arrangements.[81]
Harmonization of fisheries regulations among its members, and particularly fish quality assurance regulations, was on the list of one RFB’s important issues.[82]
On the related problem of cross regulatory/cross governance issues in the absence of such harmonization, one RFB noted that overlapping governance impedes effective implementation of management measures, and creates duplication in data reporting and error propagation. A lack of coordinated licensing structure prevents joint optimization of yield and creates ‘bycatch’ issues.[83]
One RFB is developing timely dispute settlement procedures, and cited this as an important issue.[84]
Initial thought is being given to private sector involvement in the work of one Commission, and this may affect decisions on taking measures in future.[85]
Some RFBs identified issues relating to establishment[86] of a new RFB, and ratification[87] or renegotiation[88] of a Convention as important. One FAO RFB cited the upgrading of the Committee to a Commission under Article XIV as a priority.[89] These activities reflect developments to implement the post-UNCED international instruments.
I.2.4.1 Trends
The fewest number of RFBs cited fisheries development issues as important. The issues include aquaculture and artisanal fisheries development, the impact of development, tuna industry development and assisting member States with the change in balance between subsistence and commercial fisheries.
Some RFBs identified aquaculture development as a priority issue. The need to guide increasing aquaculture investment into economically and socially sustainable channels was cited by two RFBs.[90] Another identified aquaculture development in Eastern Europe as a priority issue, noting that the marketing of freshwater aquaculture products could become critical once Eastern European countries join the EU.[91] A third cited the development of aquaculture as important to increase food security and to increase/maintain employment and income.[92]
I.2.4.2 Other Concerns
One RFB referred to artisanal fisheries development as a strong priority, noting details of a project designed to develop the main components of artisanal fishing.[93] and another named tuna industry development as a priority issue.[94] Assistance with activities for the processing, preservation and marketing of fish and fish products of inland fisheries was cited as a priority by an inland RFB.[95]
Issues not related to the development of specific fisheries include a need to assess the cumulative impact of development,[96] and to assist member States with the change in balance between subsistence and commercial fisheries.[97]
RFBs were requested to provide information regarding recent activities, priorities or plans to implement the post-UNCED fishery instruments, including the four International Plans of Action (IPOA) adopted since 1999:
1993 FAO Compliance Agreement;
1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement;
1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing;
IPOA on Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries;
IPOA on the Conservation and Management of Sharks;.
IPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity;
IPOA on the Prevention, Deterrence and Elimination of IUU Fishing.
Detailed responses from RFBs are included in the text under the relevant organization in sections II - VIII, below, and a chart showing the responses in summary form is in APPENDIX 5. Commentary in the section 1.1 above, regarding the indicative nature of the responses, diversities in mandates and other factors among RFBs and other variables is applicable to the interpretation of trends in this area. For example, if an RFB did not indicate implementation of an instrument, this may only apply to direct action for implementation and not indirectly in the context of action on related matters.
However, it is apparent that a similar number of RFBs are taking action on the implementation of all instruments across the board, but the individual RFBs vary among the instruments. The only instrument that does not appear to have attracted a similar level of action is the IPOA on Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries, but many RFBs do not have a mandate for this activity.
RFBs were requested to indicate if their RFB has recently undertaken any activity, priorities or plans in relation to the following specific issues:
Implementation of the precautionary approach
Addressing ecosystem based fisheries management
Assessment of extent, impact, effects of IUU fishing in area of competence
Strengthening RFB’s capacity to deal more effectively with conservation, management issues
Addressing issues relating to capacity
Accommodating new entrants
Catch certification and documentation
Of these, it appeared that the three issues on which most activity is taking place are implementation of the precautionary approach, addressing ecosystem based fisheries management and strengthening the RFB’s capacity to deal more effectively with conservation and management issues. This reflects to a great extent the results of the survey described in Part 1.2 on important issues for RFBs. The ecosystem approach and financial/institutional strengthening matters were each named by many RFBs as important. The other four issues each were designated by a similar number of RFBs, which was about half the number that designated each of the first three issues.
Details of the activities undertaken in relation to the specific issues are described under the relevant RFB in Parts II - X of this document. RFBs were also asked to name any other issue of concern to them, and these appear beneath the chart in Appendix 6. These issues mostly pertain to the specific work of the RFB with no apparent trends.
|
[1] See “Ecosystem-based
Management of Fisheries: Opportunities and Challenges for Coordination between
Marine Regional Fishery Bodies and Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs),” UNEP
Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 175. UNEP, 2001. ISBN 92-807-21-5-4. This
document was prepared by the author (for RFBs) and Mr. Stjepan Keckes (for RSCs)
under the joint auspices of FAO and UNEP, and presented at the 3rd Global
Meeting of the Regional Seas Conventions organized by UNEP in Monaco 6-9
November 2000 and at the 2nd Meeting of Regional Fisheries Bodies and
Arrangements, at FAO Headquarters In February 2001. The UNEP meeting endorsed a
number of actions recommended for enhanced cooperation among RFBs and RSCs. The
FAO meeting of RFBs agreed on a need for closer collaboration between RFBs and
RSCs. [2] Individual maps were taken from the RFB’s website where available. Other maps showing FAO Statistical Areas were taken from the FAO website. Websites are listed in Appendix 2. [3] These issues appear in Part C of the questionnaire, in Appendix 6, and are: implementation of precautionary approach to fisheries management; addressing ecosystem-based fisheries management; assessment of the extent, impact and effects of IUU fishing in area of competence; strengthening the organization’s capacity to deal more effectively with important conservation and management issues; addressing issues relating to capacity; accommodate new entrants; catch certification and documentation. [4] NASCO cited this connection. [5] GFCM. [6] NEAFC has brought three main fisheries under sustainable management in its Regulatory Area since 1997, and management plans have been agreed for a fourth. The next step will be to agree on management measures for deep-sea species in the Regulatory Area. CCSBT referred to the fact that the southern bluefin tuna (SBT) stock has been fished to low historical levels, and the consequent importance of setting a TAC for its management and conservation objectives. COFREMAR referred to the establishment of closed areas, seasons, gear restrictions, and a protection line in the Common Fishing Zone. [7] IOTC noted that its Agreement guarantees a share to coastal States and DWFNs invoke historical rights based on past exploitation levels or capacity. This issue is complicated by reflagging of IUU fleets in non-coastal States, often with open registries, some of which are seeking contracting or cooperating status in the Commission. [8] CPPS referred to management and development of industrial fisheries in the southeast Pacific CPPS stated that understanding the current status of the principal industrial fisheries of the region will help devise a fisheries management and development project aimed at ensuring the rational and sustainable management of fully exploited resources, a start to the tapping of potential resources and a higher harvesting of underexploited resources. The aim of the project is to help consolidate fully exploited fisheries, to raise the production of underexploited and potential fishery resources and to permit the recovery of overexploited resources, so that fisheries management and development can be truly rational and sustainable, and so that the different types of fisheries existing in each country can be enhanced. It should have a noticeable impact on national economies, with a higher contribution to Gross Domestic Product and to foreign currency earnings from exports. [9] The IWC referred to work to develop a Revised Management Scheme for commercial whaling and its relation to the current moratorium This issue is important since IWC agreed that the moratorium on commercial whaling would not be lifted until a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) that incorporates scientific aspects of management with those designed to ensure that regulations are obeyed is in place. Some component parts of the RMS have been agreed, and in particular a scientifically robust method of setting safe catch limits. This method is referred to as the Revised Management Procedure. The main issue within the RMS to be resolved is what constitutes an acceptable supervision and control scheme (e.g. percent coverage of whaling operations by international observers, need for additional catch verification measures through DNA registers and market monitoring and/or catch documentation). Some Contracting Governments believe that reaching agreement of an RMS and lifting the moratorium are inextricably linked. Others see them as two separate issues (i.e. first agree an RMS, and then consider lifting of the moratorium). [10] By IWC for aboriginal subsistence whaling. This work is being done to improve management of whale stocks subject to aboriginal subsistence takes, i.e. to ensure less risk to the stocks involved. The work includes scientific work on methods to determine safe catch limits (Strike Limit Algorithms) and guidelines for sighting surveys (needed in stock assessment) as well as operational factors such as the duration of block quotas, the extent of carry-over provisions and rules concerning the phase-out of catches if suitable scientific data are not available. [11] GFCM and RECOFI. [12] IATTC cited the conservation of yellowfin, skipjack and bigeye tuna. [13] RECOFI. [14] The stated goal of ICES in this regard is to develop protocols for preparing and delivering scientific advice on emerging ecosystem issues. [15] SPC, which links this with the hitherto lack of detailed information on the potential significance of tuna fishery bycatch. [16] CCAMLR, noting that the Convention strives to manage fishing in terms of both direct effects of fishing on target stocks and also takes into account possible effects of fishing activities on non-targeted species with a view to minimizing the risk of irreversible changes in the system. A key challenge has been the minimization of incidental mortality arising from longline fishing of seabirds breeding in the Convention Area. [17] MRC. [18] IBSFC, GFCM, NEAFC, ICCAT. The issue of fisheries management based on the ecosystem approach is part of the mandate of the GFCM/SAC Sub-Committee on Marine Ecosystems and the Environment. Possible methodologies on how to tackle the concept are being reviewed, and testing these in implementation will be largely the task of MEDSUDMED, a GFCM support regional project. [19] Rational utilisation of inland fishery resources was cited by COPESCAL, to increase food security, to maintain employment and income of population in the area. [20] IBSFC. [21] For NASCO, bycatch of Atlantic salmon in fisheries for pelagic species is an issue. The issue is being considered by the International Cooperative Salmon Research Board. ICES has been asked to provide estimates of salmon bycatch in pelagic fisheries. [22] IATTC, SPC. [23] RECOFI. [24] IPHC. [25] IOTC noted that a substantial part of the catch is unreported. NASCO reported that information provided by its Contracting Parties indicates that unreported catches amounted to between 31-45 percent of the reported catch. Progress is reported in reducing the level of unreported catches, and the Council has emphasized the need to take further measures to minimize unreported catches. GFCM reported that a in Mediterranean fisheries, a substantial part of artisanal landings (mostly demersal species) directly reach restaurants without going through auction or other schemes for reporting purposes. [26] CCAMLR reported that extensive IUU fishing in the Convention Area by Non-Parties is undermining its conservation measures. Lack of information on total removals is also compromising stock assessment and high levels of IUU fishing are directly affecting non-target species. CCSBT noted that the southern bluefin tuna (SBT) stock has been fished to low historical levels. Scientific advice to the CCSBT is that at current catch levels there is a 50 percent chance of decline in the stock and a 50 percent chance of recovery. In this context it is believed that any fishing outside the membership of the CCSBT could be critical. [27] IOTC. [28] IBSFC, and others noted in the following footnotes. [29] The NEAFC scheme established a control and enforcement system based on the NEAFC VMS automated database. Since its introduction in 2000 coverage by automatic position messages has reached almost 100 percent. Information in the database is automatically available to inspection services operating in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. [30] NPAFC noted that directed fishing for Pacific salmon is prohibited in the Convention Area. In order to prevent, deter, and eliminate any illegal fishing activities for Pacific salmon which undermine the effectiveness of the Convention, the Parties have been implementing their enforcement in a coordinated manner. Since the establishment of the NPAFC in 1993, the Parties have cooperated on the exchange of information on any violation of the provisions of the Convention and on the exchange of enforcement plans and actions. In recent years, the agencies responsible for enforcement within the Convention Area have significantly improved communications and the coordination of enforcement efforts among the Parties through the created Joint Operations Information Coordination Group (JOICG). The purpose of the JOICG is the voluntary exchange of enforcement related information, using computer and communication technology, for protection of salmon resources to prevent high seas driftnet fishing in the Convention Area of the North Pacific Ocean. IBSFC also places coordination of Parties’ enforcement activities as a priority. [31] CECAF. [32] GFCM, IBSFC, NASCO, SPC. [33] NASCO has developed agreements in relation to application of the precautionary approach to management of North Atlantic salmon fisheries and freshwater habitat protection and restoration [34] SPC also reported initiatives to take into account social and economic factors. See under SPC, “Addressing Specific Issues”. [35] CIFA identified a growing need for policies that will facilitate the sustainable management of capture fisheries and the development of environmentally sound aquaculture. [36] IOTC. [37] IATTC. [38] NAMMCO. [39] RECOFI draws attention to the negative effects of these phenomena on local markets as well as exports. [40] LVFO. This also applies to GFCM, where declarations of EEZs in the area of competence are not standard, and the Commission gives emphasis to the management of the shared stocks (i.e. that occur within 12 miles and on the high seas). [41] NASCO. [42] CPPS noted that conflicts between artisanal fisheries and larger (semi-industrial and industrial) fisheries is the most common problem arising in the Southeast Pacific. Conflict (interference) refers to disputes over fishing grounds, target and incidental species, fishing gear and practices, species caught, etc. The aim is to help bring about the sustainable management and development of the fisheries concerned, reducing disputes and increasing production and thus economic income and the social welfare of all parties; in brief, to reduce or eliminate situations of conflict and waste, and to contribute towards national fisheries development. [43] RECOFI. [44] SEAFO. [45] ICES. [46] In this context, ICES noted that the scientific advice decision-makers need involves integration of both fisheries and environmental information into useful advice. COPESCAL calls for establishment of a scientific basis for management of inland fishery resources, since there is currently not enough knowledge and awareness to encourage governments to adopt management regulations. [47] CCAMLR noted that lack of complete scientific information for key stocks, especially those be subject to “new” fishing pressure continues to hamper effective assessment of sustainable yield(s). In some instances, such uncertainty is compounded by deficiencies in the timely submission of fisheries data. SPC cited the need to mitigate scarcity of information on reef fisheries and supporting ecosystems. CCSBT reported that SBT have a biology with important implications for management by the CCSBT. Age at maturity is no less than 8 years, life expectancy is up to 40 years, there is only one known breeding ground and the spatial distribution of the fish is not well understood. An accurate assessment of the stock in this context is very important for the Commission. EIFAC reported that sturgeons have been entered in Annex B of the CITES convention. Stock assessment programmes are urgently needed in many sturgeon catching countries in order to demonstrate sustainability of sturgeon fisheries. LVFO emphasizes the importance of stock assessment, noting that one cannot continue fishing without knowing what is in the lake. The biology was crucial to establishing the size at first maturity and hence legislate the minimum mesh size for exploitation. IWC calls for a comprehensive assessment and status of whale stocks: When the Commission agreed to implement a moratorium on commercial whaling from 1986, it also agreed to include a clause that ‘the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits’. IWC reported that this assessment includes the examination of current stock size, recent population trends, carrying capacity and productivity. Assessments have been completed for some stocks and are ongoing for others. GFCM has launched a process towards harmonizing stock assessment methodologies, wherever possible. For MRC, the Fisheries Programme must provide fisheries related data for the establishment and implementation of rules for water utilization. [48] SPC calls for the need for continually more rigorous and detailed periodic assessments of the status and fishing prospects of tuna stocks and associated species at the regional and national level. RECOFI identifies regional surveys of shared stocks. [49] CIFA identifies resource evaluation as a priority, because the knowledge of potential resources limited and countries adopt precautionary approach because of a lack of specific knowledge on quantities. This gap creates problems for the managers and decision-makers. In addition, it names fisheries research and resource monitoring as a priority because strengthening fisheries research will provide very useful inputs into the management of inland fisheries resources. Statistical data collection, processing and analysis is a problem in the region and planners need reliable information to advise managers on conservation and management measures. [50] CECAF. [51] SPC referred to the need for better statistics on tuna fishery, bycatch and effort by DWFNs and coastal States fishing in the region. SEAFO referred to the collection and circulation of catch data to Contracting Parties and register of fishing vessels in the Convention Area. To design and build a relational statistical database of the main fisheries of the Southeast Pacific for the period 1990-2001, including landings, production and exports. The database will be standardized to the CPPS fisheries statistical yearbooks, related to the national fisheries statistics offices of the Member Nations and FAO. CPPS aims to provide timely and consistent information to guide investment and improve fisheries production, to optimize trade and to enhance food supply and work opportunities; in brief, the timely, relational and user-friendly fisheries database should prove useful for the strategic and executive planning of investment and production. APFIC puts an urgency on improvement on data collection and reporting due to its concern that without timely and accurate data and information, it is unlikely that stocks and fisheries depending on them could be assessed for proper management. IOTC deals with aggregated data provided by the Flag State. Many countries, including some DWFNs, do not have adequate statistical systems. The Secretariat therefore has to employ considerable resources to upgrade these systems. The Commission has also determined minimum data standards, but it has proved difficult to obtain finer-level data needed for some stock assessment studies. GFCM reported that timely collection, processing and submission of statistical data remains the first concern of GFCM. Statistical-related work remains the priority of each of the sub-committees of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and one (SIPAM) of the three subsidiaries of the Committee on Aquaculture deals only with statistics. The bulk of the activities of the three GFCM support regional projects (ADRIAMED, COPEMED and MEDSUDMED) and a specific regional statistical project (MEDFISIS) are under finalization. CECAF suggests that strengthening fisheries research will provide very useful inputs into the management recommendations of the Scientific Sub-Committee that advises the Committee on resource management. Statistical data collection, processing and analysis are problems in the region and planners need reliable information to advise managers on conservation and management measures. NASCO has established a number of statistical databases. [52] EIFAC cited decline of European eel stocks, and Danube and Black Sea sturgeon stocks; IBSFC’s concern is recovery of Eastern Baltic cod stocks and restoration of wild salmon stocks. [53] CPPS cited evaluation of Fisheries in the High Seas Adjacent to Waters under National Jurisdiction in the Southeast Pacific as an issue. It reported that the exploration and evaluation of fishery resources in the national waters of coastal States of the Southeast Pacific and in adjacent high sea areas will be intensified, with a special focus on evaluation of transboundary and highly migratory fish stocks. The aim is to heighten understanding of the distribution, concentration and abundance of fishery resources in the high seas and to guarantee their conservation and their rational and sustainable exploitation, in collaboration with the distant-water fisheries of nations from other latitudes with a clear and long-established interest in fisheries. Apart from improving economic and nutritional benefits because of greater exploitation, another positive impact will be to ensure that the high seas are no longer the focus of conflict. For GFCM, see note in relation to transboundary fishing, above. [54] NASCO reported that in recent years the mortality of salmon at sea has increased; for some monitored stocks it has doubled compared to the levels in the 1970s. However, the factors responsible for this increased mortality are poorly understood. NASCO has established an International Cooperative Salmon Research Board to promote collaboration and cooperation on research into the causes of marine mortality of salmon and the opportunities to counteract this mortality. The work of the Board in this regard is also relevant to building a foundation for science, sound scientific advice, statistical database, decline, restoration, etc of stocks and the need for a scientific research programme. [55] LVFO identified the Regional Frame Survey for Lake Victoria [56] CCSBT referred to the fact that circumstances surrounding stock assessment for SBT require sound scientific advice. The CCSBT has begun the implementation of a scientific research program aimed at supporting the stock assessment process. [57] NPAFC reported that questions about ocean migration, distribution, intermixing of stocks, associated effects on growth rates, and the need for international baselines to identify stock origins of salmon are major research issues faced by all NPAFC member Parties. Therefore, the cooperative research activities are essential for sustainable conservation of salmon stocks in their ocean ecosystems. Each Party prepares and implements its annual national research plan in an internationally coordinated manner, on the basis of the NPAFC Science Plan 2001-2005 adopted by the Parties. As one of the main areas of the Science Plan, the Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey, which involves closer cooperation of the Parties, was formulated and is being implemented for five years from 2002. [58] NAMMCO referred to current discussions on whether fish should be listed in the CITES Appendices, noting it will have great impact on fisheries. The RFBs should be informed of the process of developing criteria for fish, and work together regarding this issue. [59] IPHC explains that customs agencies are administratively isolated from authorizing agencies for RFBs, and may not have a coherent view of the roles, objectives, authorities, and permissions. It further noted the lack of consistent policy on taxation for purchases by RFBs, and a general difficulty of obtaining consistent policies for RFBs among government departments and agencies. [60] NAMMCO note that the RFBs face similar issues regardless of the resources they manage (whether fish or marine mammals), and it is important to co-operate on identifying these issues, and to co-ordinate the dissemination of information to relevant organisations outside of the RFBs. [61] NEAFC has made the issue of addressing IUU fishing and other initiatives in FAO and other international bodies a permanent item on the agenda of the Commission to ensure that NEAFC practices conform with international trends in international law. [62] The ICES Vision (“an international scientific community that is relevant, responsive, sound, and credible, concerning marine ecosystems and their relation to humanity”) goes beyond the capacities of any single organization. Thus, the goal of ICES is to enhance collaboration with organizations, scientific programmes, and stakeholders (including the fishing industry) that are relevant to the ICES goals. [63] NAMMCO. [64] CIFA suggests that Committee should collaborate with institutions and projects in the region on information available on research findings and management experiences. Such exchanges will reduce conflicts between capture fisheries/ aquaculture and other sectors like tourism in large water bodies. CECAF suggests that for better use of scarce resources and avoid duplication, the Committee should collaborate with the other bodies and arrangements in fisheries resources conservation and management. NASCO has taken steps to strengthen cooperation among RFBs. [65] SEAFO’s issue is to organize and arrange annual Interim Meetings and participation in meetings of other sister organizations. This will enable the Interim Secretariat and Contracting Parties to discuss and solve issues of concern to the organization, as well as to participate in meetings of other similar organizations with a view to exchanging information and building on their experience. [66] FFA reported that the need for FFA members to maintain solidarity on resource management issues in response to internal and external pressures is well recognized. While regional solidarity is primarily a concern for the members, the Agency will foster solidarity by ensuring that its services to members are undertaken on an equitable basis. Advisory and negotiating briefs will promote common positions and uniform approaches. [67] SEAFO relates this to receiving and managing voluntary financial contributions from Contracting Parties. WECAFC noted its dependence mainly on FAO Regular Programme Budget and extra-budgetary funding acquired by the Fisheries Department of FAO. Its member countries do not contribute financially to the work of the Commission. APFIC reported that the lack of financial contribution from Member States together with declining support from FAO has crippled it in carrying out its mandate as required. IATTC stated that is important for the future long-term stability of the budget of the Commission, and thus the Commission itself, to address the issue of member country contributions so that all members are contributing at a level they are able and willing to achieve. IPHC advises that management needs are now more acute, requiring more data with greater timeliness. Research planning and execution necessitates stable funding, yet research and staff costs increase at greater rate than funding. GFCM reported that full-fledged management outputs depend on entry into force of amendments to the GFCM Agreement concerning the autonomous budget. The current “interim phase” is characterized by a lack of financial resources to carry out the proposed annual workplan. CECAF noted that Committee activities cannot be funded by mandatory contributions from its members and extra-budgetary funds are dwindling. [68] IWC. In the last few years, the Commission has been reviewing the way in which financial contributions from Contracting Governments are determined, including for the first time an element in relation to a country’s capacity to pay. This is important since it will make membership of the organization more accessible to smaller/poorer countries. Also involved is review of who is a ‘user’ in the context of the ‘user pays’ principle (e.g. whether non-consumption use should be included). [69] IOTC referred specifically to the need to improve statistical systems in some Contracting Parties to meet the agreed minimum data standards. WECAFC referred to weak fisheries administrations in most Member countries, and the need for capacity building and financial support. Some problems include the current economic situation and structural adjustment programmes in many Member countries; high mobility of personnel and reduction in budgets; and reduced ability to actively participate in activities of the Commission and in its working groups. The activities are reported to be a reflection of the priorities of Member States. The majority of FFA Member States have small populations, fragile economies, and limited technical capacity and expertise. On the other hand the tuna resources of their exclusive economic zones and in the region generally are vast and constitute one of the largest fisheries in the world. FFA has been given the role of assisting Members in improving their capacity to manage and develop the tuna resources for their benefit. CIFA noted that Committee activities cannot be funded by mandatory contributions from its Members and extra-budgetary funds are dwindling. COPESCAL calls for education and training of people in resource evaluation, research, and related areas. To increase food security, to maintain employment and income of population in the area, to increase awareness regarding the need of better use of fishery resources, to increase awareness of officials regarding the importance and contribution of inland fisheries and aquaculture to national economy. [70] WECAFC, and GFCM. The latter noted the dual characteristics of fishing (artisanal/industrial); the multispecies resource base and the mix of members’ economic status, including developing/developed/transition status. [71] WECAFC. [72] SPC. [73] To add value to the efforts of Member Countries and individual scientists by fostering the sharing of human and material assets, and by pooling resources to support common goals. ICES’ goals include: maintaining and further developing a modern and effective infrastructure; and broadening the diversity of scientists who participate in ICES activities. [74] FFA reported that one of the important challenges is provision of information amongst FFA members, and between members and the Agency. FFA will take a role in facilitating information exchange by promoting website use and other modern/efficient communication methods, by producing timely publications, and by arranging meetings of members and others on critical topics. GFCM’s concerns in this regard are expressed under review of statistical database, infra. NASCO has taken steps to improve information exchange among its members. [75] SPC cited the need to get better information on all areas to decision-makers. A need was stated for an expert filter to process and summarise relevant and applicable information from the vast flow of material, not all of it relevant, that fisheries administrations currently access. [76] ICES noted that ultimately, the greatest contribution made by sound scientific information may be the influence it has on public opinion. There are many organizations that use scientific information to help stress their points of view when it comes to environmental issues and living marine resources. However, their interpretation of scientific information is not always objective. The sole reason for ICES to make scientific information more accessible to a wider public is to provide an unbiased scientific basis for public opinion and policies. MRC reported communication as a priority issue. [77] CCSBT reported that the are currently 5 members of the Extended Commission which cover about 90 percent of the reported catch. Indonesia fishes in the only known spawning ground of SBT and takes a significant amount of SBT. The CCSBT is encouraging the membership of Indonesia, in particular, and other interested countries to join so that the aims and objectives of the Convention will apply to almost the full commercial catch of SBT. [78] IOTC noted that key fishery participants are not currently parties to the Commission. One has withheld important data against a voice in management decisions and access to the resource, and another is concerned about having to apply management measures to their artisanal fishery. [79] CCAMLR. It noted that the entry into force of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement is likely to impact on the competencies and status associated with specific RFMBs. It is seen that some period of time will be required in order to ensure that the current RFMB’s competence is appropriately aligned with other RFMBs (both pre- and post-dating the Agreement). [80] IWC reported concerns about its competence to address issues in relation to small cetaceans, whalewatching and the environment. [81] APFIC. [82] LVFO noted that in a shared resource the product exported has to have the same standards to conform to the importers requirements. A bad product from any of the three Partner States can cause a ban on the fish exports from the whole region. [83] IPHC. [84] NEAFC referred to a proposal for amending the Convention to allow the fast settlement of disputes if the parties involved agree will be put before the 2002 Annual Meeting. Rules for other less demanding procedures have been agreed. If the amendment to the Convention is agreed, it is the intended to apply these provisionally, pending their entry into force. [85] GFCM. [86] FFA referred to the establishment of the Western and Central Pacific Tuna Commission as important for the sustainable management and development of tuna resources in a coordinated way in the region. It will enable the small Pacific coastal States and territories to work together with DWFNs on this issue. FFA will assist its member countries in the work of the commission. [87] SEAFO’s priority is to obtain the necessary instruments of ratification of the Convention by signatory parties. [88] IATTC referred to the importance of updating and improving the existing Convention in order to make it more effective. This is also an opportunity to apply the new fisheries management principles that have been recently negotiated. [89] CECAF. At its Sixteenth Session in October 2002, the Committee felt that the status quo of the Committee should be maintained and, in particular, that it could continue to operate as an advisory body set up under Article VI, paragraph 2 of the FAO Constitution. It agreed that the work of the Committee should be more focused and revised the Terms of Reference of CECAF. The Committee recommended that, without prejudice to the proposal that the current status quo of CECAF be maintained, the Director General should keep under review the issue of a possible framework for the high seas. To this effect, it requested the Director General to convene an Legal and Technical Consultation to address the matter before the Seventeenth Session of CECAF. [90] SPC and GFCM. The latter reported that promoting economically and socially sustainable aquaculture is the objective of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ). Pursuant to an exercise for “regionalizing” Article 9 of the Code of Conduct, CAQ has adopted a Plan of Action in this respect. [91] EIFAC reported that specific recommendations were prepared by the EIFAC/EC Working Party on Market Perspectives of European Freshwater Aquaculture in 2001, to be followed up by the International Conference on Aquaculture Economics/Marketing. [92] COPESCAL. [93] CCPS reported that the main objective of the CPPS /Artisanal Fisheries: Analysis and Development Project in the Southeast Pacific has is to help develop the main components of artisanal fisheries. The main components include: appropriate fishing technologies, fishing craft and gear, fishing methods and activities, increased production, enhanced marketing and higher income with a view to furthering food security (increased supply of fishery products), and boosting work opportunities and economic incomes; in brief, helping improve the quality of life of artisanal fisheries communities. Baseline studies on the biology, fishery, fishing effort and landings of the main fishery resources harvested by artisanal fisheries will lead to regional analysis and, in particular, to the preparation of a fisheries development project to be submitted to selected sources of economic and financial assistance for implementation. [94] FFA reported that its members are determined to see more private sector tuna-based economic activities, and to improve their domestic retention of economic and social benefits from the tuna industry. FFA will assist this by providing or coordinating expert advice in particular areas of interest. [95] COPESCAL’s aim is to increase income of population involved in the area, by enhancing their possibilities to access to markets and to better prices. [96] One component of the MRC Fisheries Programme is Ecology and Impact Assessment, where the cumulative impacts of development are to be assessed. [97] SPC. An attendant need is identified to develop environmentally sound small scale coastal-based fishing enterprises, working in collaboration with the larger-scale tuna fisheries economic development work of FFA. |
){kind=link}
){kind=link}