I. BACKGROUND

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in accordance with its mandate in fisheries within the United Nations (UN) system, plays a pivotal role in monitoring and reporting on global developments in fisheries. In 1993, as part of its so-called �watch dog� reporting, the Organization brought to the attention of the international community the poor, and in some cases, declining state of a number of the world�s more important and valuable fisheries. At the same time, in its reporting, FAO highlighted the fundamental role played by fisheries and aquaculture in food security, and documented improvements that have taken place in fisheries management, including reporting on national and regional initiatives that have been adopted to promote sustainable resource-use practice.¹

In 1993 FAO published its revised special chapter of The State of Food and Agriculture 1992.² Some commentators have noted that this publication represented a milestone in FAO fisheries analysis. Significantly, the publication was prepared ten years after the conclusion of negotiations for the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982 Convention). In the analysis presented it was possible to reflect on global changes in the fisheries sector in the decade following the general international acceptance of the concept of extended jurisdiction, and the impact that such jurisdiction had had on the way in which national fisheries were being managed.

At the conclusion of the negotiations for the 1982 Convention it had been assumed, implicitly at least, that the formalisation of the concept of extended jurisdiction in international law would lead to a substantial improvement in the way in which the world�s fisheries resources were managed and utilised.³ However, the FAO analysis, drawing together data and related fisheries information in a novel way, showed that the anticipated improvement in fisheries management had not been generally realised as a consequence of the "new-world order" in fisheries. Moreover, the FAO analysis provided, for the first time, global estimates of fish stocks that were considered to be fully exploited, over-exploited or in a state of recovery.⁴ This analysis, widely quoted in the international fisheries press and literature, has become something akin to benchmark data. Since the publication of FAO�s analysis, the organization has incrementally refined, extended and modified the results as new information has become available.⁵

This 1991-92 FAO analysis concerning the state of world fisheries was undertaken against a background of preparations for the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The lead-up to this Conference, and the very intensive programme of pre-Conference negotiations, served to promote broad international awareness and concern about the manner in which many of the world�s natural resources were being used.

In May 1992, one month prior to UNCED, the International Conference on Responsible Fisheries was convened in Cancún, Mexico. The Conference was hosted by the Government of Mexico in collaboration with FAO. The Conference had its roots in the 1991 Nineteenth Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) which recommended, inter alia, that the concept of responsible fishing be developed and that an instrument to this effect be elaborated.⁶ The Mexican Conference adopted the Cancún Declaration, which provided input to the UNCED process and gave impetus, within FAO, to the elaboration of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

In combination, the 1991 Session of COFI, the Cancún Conference⁷ and UNCED led to the launching of three international and mutually consistent fisheries initiatives. Although somewhat different in focus and scope, each of the initiatives had similar overall goals: the long-term, sustainable use of fisheries. These initiatives involved the:

• convening of the 1993-95 United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Conference) which led to the opening for signature in December 1995 of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement);⁸
• 1992-93 negotiation in FAO of the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement), which was adopted in November 1993 by the Twenty-seventh Session of the FAO Conference in resolution 15/93; and
• 1993-95 negotiation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and its adoption by consensus in October 1995 by the FAO Conference in resolution 4/95.

Whereas the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the Compliance Agreement focused on high seas fisheries, the Code of Conduct addressed all fisheries, including aquaculture.

Reinforcing and underscoring the importance of these international initiatives was the Rome Consensus on World Fisheries,⁹ adopted by the FAO Ministerial Conference on Fisheries in March 1995. Inter alia, the Consensus noted the need to take urgent action to address issues such as overfishing, the development of sustainable aquaculture, and the rehabilitation of fish habitats. In addition, the Consensus urged governments and international organizations to take prompt action to effectively implement the relevant rules of international law on fisheries and related matters which were reflected in the 1982 Convention; to bring to a successful conclusion the UN Fish Stocks Agreement; to complete the process for the elaboration of the Code of Conduct; and to ratify the Compliance Agreement.

The concept of responsible fisheries and the possibility of elaborating guidelines or a code of practice for responsible fisheries which would take into account all the technical, socio-economic and environmental factors involved, as noted above, was first mooted by the 1991 Session of COFI within the context of its deliberations on matters relating to large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing.¹⁰ In this connection, COFI recognized that FAO had an important role to play in promoting international understanding about the responsible conduct of fishing operations and it was in this way that the concept of, and the need for, a Code of Conduct was conceived.¹¹

At the 1993 Twentieth Session of COFI, the Committee noted that the FAO Council had endorsed the request made in the 1992 Declaration of Cancún for FAO to elaborate, in consultation with relevant international organizations, a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. COFI agreed that such a Code would be important for achieving sustainable fisheries development. On related issues, COFI expressed satisfaction that FAO would contribute in a technical and scientific capacity to the Fish Stocks Conference, and the Committee agreed that the negotiation of the Compliance Agreement should be kept on a �fast track�, while reiterating that flagging issues would be among the issues to be covered by the Code.¹²

The scope and the process of elaboration of the Code was a major item for discussion at the 1995 Twenty-first Session of COFI.¹³ COFI stressed the importance of the Code as an instrument which could support the implementation of the 1982 Convention and the fisheries outcomes of UNCED. The Committee also recorded its appreciation for the good progress that had been made in the various working groups that had been established to elaborate the Code. COFI also noted that technical guidelines would be developed by FAO to support and facilitate the Code�s implementation.¹⁴

With respect to implementation of the Code, it was recognized from the outset that industry and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) would play an important role in its implementation.¹⁵ Indeed, it was further recognized that while in developed countries industry groups would mobilise behind the responsible fisheries banner (e.g. Australia, Germany,¹⁶ Japan and USA), in developing countries NGOs were likely to have a fundamental role given their �grass-roots contacts�. It was for this reason that industry and NGOs representatives were encouraged to participate in the elaboration of the Code. Moreover, since 1995 when the Code was adopted FAO has continued to maintain contacts with these organizations and to work with them in disseminating information about the Code and in supporting its implementation.

The process of negotiation of the Code was largely achieved through the use of open-ended technical working groups. A total of five such groups were held during the elaboration process, all of which met at FAO Headquarters in Rome.¹⁷

Open-ended groups were convened so as to encourage as wider participation as possible in the negotiation process. Recognising the financial difficulty that many developing countries had in participating in the work of these groups, FAO supported the participation of some countries at meetings with a view to maintaining regional representation and balance.¹⁸ Moreover, in the elaboration process close relations between FAO and a number of NGOs were encouraged. Many of these NGOs made sustained and important technical contributions to the elaboration process. This participation and transparency was highly appreciated both by FAO Members and the international NGO community.

Following the negotiation of the Code, the FAO Conference unanimously adopted it in October 1995.¹⁹ In so doing the Conference made a broad international call to all those involved in the fisheries sector, including both FAO and non-FAO Members, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs, industry and fishermen to collaborate in the fulfilment and implementation of the Code�s objectives and principles.

At the 1997 Twenty-second Session of COFI, the Code was addressed as a substantive item. In considering this item the Committee focused, to a significant extent, on securing funding to support the implementation of the Code in developing countries and on monitoring and reporting on its implementation. With regard to these matters COFI agreed that progress reports should be presented to the Committee every session. These reports would address achievements and progress with implementation. Governments were requested to provide information to FAO on progress with national implementation through the use of a questionnaire to be developed by the Secretariat.²⁰ This information would then be incorporated into a consolidated report to the Committee.

The Code takes cognisance of the state of world fisheries and aquaculture, and proposes actions towards implementing fundamental changes within the fisheries sector to encourage the rational and sustainable utilisation of fisheries and aquaculture. The rationale underlying the Code is the notion that structural adjustment within the fisheries sector is required if long-term goals of sustainability are to be achieved. Moreover, the Code recognizes that while policy decisions concerning the changes aimed at achieving sustainability rest firmly with governments, the effective implementation of the Code requires wide stakeholder participation and cooperation (i.e. from fishermen, processors, NGOs to consumers).

Article 2 of the Code summarises its objectives. These are to:

• establish principles, in accordance with the relevant rules of international law, for responsible fishing and fisheries activities, taking into account all their relevant biological, technological, economic, social, environmental and commercial aspects;
• establish principles and criteria for the elaboration and implementation of national policies for responsible conservation of fisheries resources and fisheries management and development;
• serve as an instrument of reference to help States to establish or to improve the legal and institutional framework required for the exercise of responsible fisheries and in the formulation and implementation of appropriate measures;
• provide guidance which may be used where appropriate in the formulation and implementation of international agreements and other legal instruments, both binding and voluntary;
• facilitate and promote technical, financial and other cooperation in conservation of fisheries resources and fisheries management and development;
• promote the contribution of fisheries to food security and food quality, giving priority to the nutritional needs of local communities;
• promote protection of living aquatic resources and their environments and coastal areas;
• promote the trade of fish and fishery products in conformity with relevant international rules and avoid the use of measures that constitute hidden barriers to such trade;
• promote research on fisheries as well as on associated ecosystems and relevant environmental factors, and
• provide standards of conduct for all persons involved in the fisheries sector.

These objectives underpin, and indeed provide the general framework for, the Code�s General Principles in Article 6 and the other substantive articles (Articles 7 to 12).

The Code is a voluntary instrument.²¹ This means that it does not have to be formally accepted by governments in the same way as the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the Compliance Agreement. It has been noted that the voluntary nature of the Code "... has enabled it to cover much more than could possibly be covered in a document intended to be a binding international agreement ... In fact, this aspect of the Code is one of its hidden strengths ...".²²

The Code�s scope is broad and comprehensive. It prescribes principles and standards for the conservation and management of all fisheries, and addresses the capture, processing and trade in fish and fishery products, fishing operations, aquaculture, fisheries research and the integration of fisheries into coastal area management.

In total, the Code has 12 articles and two annexes. Articles 1 to 5 cover, respectively, the nature and scope of the Code, objectives, relationship with other international instruments, implementation, monitoring and updating, and the special requirements of developing countries. Significantly, in Article 4, COFI is designated as the body to monitor the application and implementation of the Code. Moreover, through its appropriate bodies, and taking account of reports to COFI concerning the Code�s implementation, provision exists for FAO, through COFI, to revise the Code. This possibility ensures that the Code remains a �living document�, capable of being adapted and modified to meet new fisheries developments and situations.

The substantive article of the Code are found Articles 6 to 12. These articles are:

• Article 6 General Principles;
• Article 7 Fisheries Management;
• Article 8 Fishing Operations;
• Article 9 Aquaculture Development;
• Article 10 Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Area Management;²³
• Article 11 Post-harvest Practices and Trade; and
• Article 12 Fisheries Research.

The Code�s two annexes, respectively, provide background to the origin and elaboration of the Code, and the text of FAO Conference resolution 4/95 concerning the adoption of the Code.

Resolution 4/95 of the FAO Conference, recalling Article 5 of the Code, urged that the special requirements of developing countries be taken into account in implementing its provisions. The resolution also requested FAO to elaborate an inter-regional programme for external assistance for these countries.²⁴ The purpose of this programme would target the upgrading of developing countries� capabilities so that they would be better placed to meet their obligations under the Code.

The Compliance Agreement is an integral component of the Code.²⁵ However, the Agreement, when it comes into force, will have a different legal status to that of the Code in that the Agreement will be a legally binding international instrument. Currently, ten States (Argentina, Canada, Georgia, Madagascar, Myanmar, Namibia, Norway, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sweden, and the United States of America) and the European Community have accepted the Compliance Agreement. It will enter into force on the date of receipt by the Director-General of FAO of the twenty-fifth instrument of acceptance.

The purpose of the Compliance Agreement is to provide an instrument for countries to take effective action, consistent with international law, to deter the reflagging of vessels by their nationals as a means of avoiding compliance with applicable conservation and management rules for fishing activities on the high seas. In its Preamble, the Agreement notes that the practice of flagging and reflagging fishing vessels as a means of avoiding compliance with international conservation and management measures for living marine resources, and the failure of flag States to fulfil their responsibilities with respect to fishing vessels entitled to fly their flag, are among the factors that seriously undermine the effectiveness of such measures.²⁶

In practice, the Compliance Agreement seeks to ensure that there is effective flag State control over fishing vessels operating on the high seas. This would require, inter alia, that Parties to the Agreement maintain a register of vessels to fish on the high seas and that all vessels engaged in such fishing operations are authorised to do so. Moreover, the Agreement requires that certain records concerning the physical characteristics of the vessels and their ownership and operational details, be maintained by the Parties are part of their flag State responsibilities. Furthermore, Parties are obligated to exchange information maintained on their respective registers through FAO and other appropriate global, regional and sub-regional fisheries organizations.

Even though the Compliance Agreement has not yet entered into force, some of its elements are already being adopted by countries as their respective fisheries legislation is revised and other policy changes implemented concerning national authorisations for vessels to fish on the high seas. FAO is continuing to promote the acceptance of the Agreement so that it might be brought into force with minimal delay.²⁷

In support of the Compliance Agreement, a High Seas Vessel Registration Database System (HSREG), was created in 1995 to facilitate monitoring of vessels licensed to fish on the high seas. The development of the System was funded by the Government of Canada. The database currently contains information on a total of 621 licensed vessels from two signatories to the Compliance Agreement, Canada and the USA. The database has been demonstrated at FAO Headquarters and in other countries. It is anticipated that the volume of licensed vessels in the database will increase dramatically in the future. At the present time all data input to, and maintenance of, the HSREG database is undertaken by FAO, but plans to permit user input through a secure Internet site have been considered.

FAO has a responsibility to facilitate the implementation of the Code and, where possible and appropriate, to technically support national and regional initiatives towards this end. However, primary responsibility for the Code�s implementation rests with governments since it involves difficult, and sometimes sensitive, national policy decisions.

FAO�s global role in promoting the implementation of the Code centres on a number of different, but related, activities. These initiatives accord with instructions from the FAO Governing Bodies and COFI concerning activities to support the dissemination and implementation of the Code. These initiatives, many of which are inter-related, include:

• the dissemination of the Code in official FAO languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, and Spanish) through a range of channels;²⁸
• the implementation of the Code has been placed on the agendas of all FAO regional fishery bodies for consideration and follow-up action. In this way awareness about the importance of the Code and the need to promote and facilitate its implementation has been heightened;
• FAO staff routinely promote the implementation of the Code when country visits are undertaken;
• the elaboration and distribution of technical guidelines to assist with the national implementation of the Code. Currently six guidelines have been printed and distributed, and other guidelines are in the pipeline;
• training related to, and in support of, the implementation of the Code is planned through TRAINFISH, a training methodology based on TRAIN-X which is promoted by the United Nations Development Programme for use within the UN system. TRAINFISH will have a strong focus on national capacity building and in promoting programme sustainability. A video concerning the Code will be developed and distributed in support of this training initiative;
• an inter-regional programme to support activities relating to the implementation of the Code has been elaborated. The programme has been presented to the international donor community to determine funding interest.²⁹ The Government of Norway has committed itself to fund at least two components of the programme relating to fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance, and fisheries research;
• the development of an FAO strategy for the period 1998 to 2002 to guide the Department of Fisheries in activities relating to the Code�s implementation. This draft strategy will be submitted to the 1999 Twenty-third Session of COFI for consideration;
• the monitoring of progress with the Code�s implementation, and reporting to COFI, will be primarily facilitated through the provision of national information provided to FAO through a questionnaire. Information provided by countries will be consolidated for COFI reporting; and
• a Internet site for the Code has been established on the FAO Page on the web. The site is updated regularly, providing information about developments with the Code.

At the regional level, fishery bodies have an important role to play in facilitating the implementation of the Code, and for this reason the draft FAO strategy to support implementation underscores the importance of regional action.³⁰ The strategy recognizes that because of its global, and in some cases generalised nature, the Code would be better implemented if some of its provisions were adapted to meet different fishery (e.g. inshore and offshore fisheries, small-scale and industrial fisheries, marine and inland fisheries, and aquaculture) and regional circumstances (e.g. tropical and temperate fisheries) as far they are consistent with its basic purposes and principles. Moreover, it is further recognized that in regions where there are shared fisheries, or common management problems in non-shared fisheries, regional cooperation as expressed through the co-ordination of management policies and other forms of cooperation (e.g. sharing of training and research institutes and other forms of technical cooperation), can be best achieved through the programmes of regional fishery bodies.

The mounting of regional workshops to assist in the adaptation of the Code so that it might more appropriately meet the needs of particular fisheries and different regional situations is being fostered by FAO and some of its projects.

The first such regional workshop was conducted in June 1989 in Benin, West Africa for all 20 maritime countries (from Morocco to Namibia) of the region. The workshop, known as the Regional Workshop for the Adaptation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in West Africa, was organised by the FAO Regional Programme for Integrated Development of Artisanal Fisheries in West Africa, with technically support from FAO�s Fisheries Department.³¹ In its substantive sessions the workshop addressed the origin and role of the Code; the strategy to implement the Code which has been elaborated by FAO; and the rationale for adapting the Code in the West African context. An important feature of the workshop were working groups that considered how the Code�s articles might be most appropriately adapted for the region.

Following on the success of the West African workshop, it is planned to mount, following requests from countries and territories in the Western and Central Pacific and the Indian Oceans, similar workshops for these regions. There is also the possibility of a workshop in the Caribbean. It is anticipated that these workshops will be similar in scope and content to the West African initiative.

A further FAO regional activity for the adaptation of the Code of Conduct concerns a project for the application of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Aquaculture Development) in the Mediterranean Region. This project, which will focus on the implementation of Article 9 of the Code, will be implemented through the General Fishery Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), with funding from the Government of Italy.³² The project will involve a consultation in late 1998, will seek to:

• review the level of understanding and the status of the application of Article 9 of the Code in GFCM Members, to examine mechanisms which have been put in place by Members and to utilise the Code as general guidelines to ensure the responsible development of aquaculture; and
• discuss identified gaps and difficulties encountered in the application in the Mediterranean context of Article 9, at the national and regional levels; and on the basis of the foregoing two points, propose an action plan at the national and regional levels which would support the application of Article 9.

Further action will be required by GFCM Members, at a later stage, in order to implement the action plan.

A number of non-FAO regional fishery bodies have taken important steps to substantively implement the Code of Conduct among their members and within their respective areas of competence. Some of the regional bodies that have taken steps in this direction include the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (with respect to the application of the precautionary approach to fishery management); the North Atlantic Fishery organization (NAFO) (with respect to transparency and the application of the precautionary approach);³³ the Latin American organization for Development of Fisheries (OLDEPESCA), in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank, had commenced a regional programme for the implementation of international fishery instruments, including the Code of Conduct and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement;³⁴ while the Permanent South Pacific Commission (CPPS) is actively promoting the Code and is encouraging members to include the Code�s provisions in national legislation.³⁵

A further important initiative in South-East Asia with respect to the implementation and adaptation of the Code of Conduct is being pursued by the Thailand-based Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC). This organization has commenced a project for the regionalisation of the Code. Phase 1 of the project focuses on responsible fishing operations. The project, to be implemented over the period from 1998 to 2000 and to be funded by the Government of Japan under trust fund arrangements, will consider the appropriateness of the fishing operations aspects for SEAFDEC members and to identify any gaps; to produce regional technical; guidelines for responsible operations; and to disseminate and promote the regional technical guidelines for responsible fishing.³⁶

Hayashi has noted that one of FAO�s priorities is to facilitate closer cooperation among FAO and non-FAO fishery bodies to consider common issues emanating from the implementation of the Code of Conduct and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement as well as options for strengthening cooperation and co-ordination among them, possible through a permanent co-operative mechanism.³⁷ A recommendation was also made by 1998 High-level Panel of External Fisheries Experts in Fisheries in that "FAO should convene a Special Meeting of Managers and Secretaries of FAO and non-FAO Bodies, and in the first instance the tuna bodies, to identify and address common problems and constraints, identify and develop strategies and mechanisms to address constraints, share experiences and lessons learned, and improve the effectiveness of the bodies;".³⁸

To give effect to this recommendation FAO has taken the initiative to organise such a meeting of regional fishery bodies in February 1999, immediately prior to the Twenty-third Session of COFI. The purpose of the meeting is to exchange view and experiences with respect to common issues relating to fishery bodies and to discuss strategies for the promotion of the Code of Conduct and other recently adopted international agreements. It is also envisaged that possible institutional linkages between COFI and these bodies, particularly non-FAO bodies, could be addressed. FAO is convinced that the better co-ordination among regional fishery bodies and a closer linkage between them and COFI would greatly improve global fisheries governance.

The February 1999 meeting of fishery bodies will address the following broad areas:

• the role of regional fishery bodies as vehicles for good fishery governance;
• major issues affecting the performance of regional bodies; and
• a multi-faceted approach to fishery status and trends reporting.

A further area where FAO is encouraging work is in the establishment of regional fishery bodies where such bodies do not currently exist (e.g., in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, the South-East Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean and the Caspian Sea).³⁹ FAO is providing technical input to the current initiatives in the Western and Central Pacific and the South-East Atlantic which are being pursued within the framework of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. With respect to the Caspian Sea, negotiations among littoral countries have been in train since 1993 after two countries began initial negotiations at FAO.

With respect to national implementation of the Code, governments are encouraged to work with all stakeholders to facilitate structural adjustment and change in the fisheries sector. In large-scale fisheries, industry will have a prominent role in implementing the Code; this role will essentially involve ensuring that industry compiles voluntarily with measures adopted by governments to facilitate the long-term, sustainable use of fisheries. Such compliance will reduce government enforcement costs in achieving national goals. In contrast, in artisanal and small-scale fisheries, the fishing communities themselves (through community-based management) and possibly NGOs (given their grass-roots fisheries connections in many developing countries), will be expected to be closely involved in facilitating and supporting the implementation of the Code.

FAO, and indeed the Code itself, acknowledge that the implementation of the Code requires concerted and coherent action and cooperation by all stakeholders. However, rapid adjustment and change in the fisheries sector, as a consequence of steps taken to implement the Code, are unlikely to result, nor indeed are they to be expected. Rather, progress towards implementation and the benefits generated from policies and measures adopted by governments to facilitate sustainability are more likely to yield phased and incremental results.

A fundamental concept underlying the implementation of the Code is the assumption that governments want better managed and sustainable fisheries, and that they are prepared to take politically unpopular and difficult decisions, in the short-term, as a means of attaining longer-term sustainability gains.⁴⁰ However, this notion is perhaps somewhat naive, since most governments have short planning and policy horizons. Under these circumstances, governments seek to minimise social and economic disruption through their policy interventions, even when it is recognised that such intervention is necessary to achieve sustainable practice in the fisheries sector. For this reason, technical advice concerning fisheries management and the policy decisions taken by governments concerning management (e.g. the imposition of certain input and output controls), often fail to intermesh. It is also why the implementation of management measures, or the modification of existing management approaches, tend to only yield incremental results unless a fishery is very seriously depleted or collapses.

Having regard for the difficulties associated with the sustainable management of the fisheries sector, it is none-the-less important to note the major contribution made by the sector to global food security. Indeed, in some communities and regions, and among some groups of countries (e.g. communities around large inland lakes and in small island developing States), fish constitutes, by a wide margin, the most significant source of animal protein for human consumption. In this connection, one of the major challenges in fisheries management facing all countries is how to implement measures that will permit overexploited stocks to be rebuilt in a reasonable period of time and to concurrently ensure that optimally, underexploited or unexploited stocks do not become overfished. A fine balancing of policies and management measures is required to achieve such an objective. However, if globally successful these policies should enable the aggregate contribution of fish to food security to be maintained, if not increased.⁴¹ The goals and principles of the Code are intrinsically linked to this food security challenge.⁴²

The Code of Conduct has particular relevance for countries and territories in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The island States and territories of the region, on the one hand, are highly dependent on their fisheries resources for national food security and for the promotion of social and economic development (including recreational fishing and tourism), while on the other hand, many of the inshore fisheries resources are heavily, if not over-exploited. The capacity of inshore resources, especially around urban centres, are increasingly coming under pressure and are not able to support the food and other needs of communities in the same way that they did in the past. Furthermore, population and other pressures have eroded the effectiveness of traditional fishery management practice, thereby exacerbating the need for well defined, popular and resilient fisheries management arrangements.

The Code seeks to ensure that all fisheries, irrespective of their location and irrespective of whom is exploiting them, are managed in a rational and responsible manner since they "...provide a vital source of food, employment, recreation, trade and economic well-being for people throughout the world, both for present and future generations...".⁴³ The inter-temporal consideration concerning resource sustainability and inter-generational equity in relation to resource use access is a central aspect of the Code of Conduct. These considerations underscore the need for effective fisheries management arrangements.

In taking these considerations into account, all Western and Central Pacific Ocean countries and territories are urged to initiate and strengthen national measures to implement the spirit and intent of the Code of Conduct, to accept the Compliance Agreement, and to sign and ratify the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, as soon as possible. Moreover, where common fisheries issues need to be addressed, countries and territories are urged to participate in regional activities for this purpose.

Fishery management bodies such as the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) assume a role of critical importance under the Code of Conduct in facilitating regional action and activities aimed at implementing the Code, and related fishery instruments as a means of strengthening fisheries management and utilisation. Indeed, the long-term and sustainable management of fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean will depend, to a very large extent, on the effectiveness of the implementation of these instruments.

The poor state of many of the world�s major fisheries, ineffective and inconsistent national and regional management practices, and the need to facilitate long-term, sustainable fisheries led to the adoption of the Code in 1995. Briefly stated, its purpose is to facilitate structural adjustment and change in the fisheries sector to:

• ensure sustainable utilisation of resources, and
• maintain the global contribution of fisheries to food security.

However, analysis undertaken by FAO, and other studies, have shown that many of the world�s fisheries are not subject to effective management. This situation, while not only having implications for the erosion of the resource base in these fisheries in the longer term, also negatively impacts the current and future contribution of fisheries to food security.

In the post-UNCED period there has been heightened international attention concerning the need to implement sustainable practice in the fisheries sector. In an unprecedented way countries, both individually and in regional groupings, have been called upon to focus more intensively on the implementation on rational management measures in the sector. Certain shortcomings have been highlighted, including the lack of flag State responsibility in some cases, vessel reflagging to avoid legitimate fisheries conservation and management measures, and weak monitoring, control and surveillance of fleets. Countries through a range of national and international initiatives have been called upon to address these and other past shortcomings in fisheries management in a substantive manner. To this end countries have been encouraged, inter alia, to:

• take account of, and to apply, new and innovative approaches to management;
• broaden participation in the management process by involving all stockholders;
• foster greater international cooperation where fisheries resources are shared, including more effective participation in the work of regional fishery bodies; and
• accept, as soon as possible, international fishery instruments open for signature and ratification so as to bring them into effect without delay.

Reaching agreement on the text of the Code of Conduct during the negotiation process was not always an easy task; the accommodation of different positions in a negotiation process requires good faith on the parties involved and their willingness to compromise to reach a workable outcome. However, in the post-negotiation period, the real challenge for countries is to devise appropriate policies and to implement measures in fisheries that will give effect to the Code. In essence, this task requires taking the general principles and provisions of the substantive articles of the Code and translating them into actions that will facilitate the changes required in the fisheries sector to yield long-term, sustainable results.