13. The Executive Committee considered the above agenda item on the basis of document APFIC ExCo/03/3. It was recalled that the Commission, at its Twenty-seventh Session (2001) had discussed the financial implications to APFIC in light of Resolution 13/97 adopted by the Twenty-ninth Session of the FAO Conference in 1997. The Commission had agreed that despite its financial uncertainty, it should continue to function, but with more focused and well-defined programmes of action that were responsive to the needs of its Members.
14. As the majority of the Members present at the Twenty-seventh Session had no mandate to discuss the financial issues relevant to the future of APFIC, the Commission requested the Director-General of FAO to invite the APFIC Members to reaffirm their continued interest in and commitment to the Commission.
15. The Committee noted that the Director-General issued the above invitation to the 20 Members of the Commission on 19 April 2002, requesting a response by 30 June 2002. Of the 15 Members that have responded to the Director-General’s letter, ten specifically supported the concept of APFIC assuming the role of a Consultative Fisheries Body, thus supporting the identified need for the continuation of a regional integrating mechanism. One Member suggested that savings from the Japanese Trust Fund provided for the FAO Fisheries Department could be used in support of APFIC and another Member agreed in principle to provide contributions, subject to government approval.
16. The majority of the Members, which responded, were of the opinion that contributions should be voluntary rather than mandatory, with a continuation of the current practice of Members financing their respective participation in the meetings of APFIC and its subsidiary bodies.
17. Two Members indicated that they would be prepared to contribute to APFIC’s project activities according to their relevance or complementarity to ongoing national initiatives. A further two Members stated that they could contribute in kind to the activities of the Commission, whilst five Members explicitly stated that they were unable to provide financial support to the Commission.
18. It was agreed that the afore-mentioned responses be taken into account when the Committee discussed the future of APFIC.
